Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Energy Conservation (Public Buildings)

Mr. Hanley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives have been taken by his Department to encourage the conservation of energy in public buildings.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): A major objective of the energy efficiency campaign is to promote the better use of fuel in industrial, commercial and public buildings. The public sector, along with industry and commerce, has been encouraged to take advantage of the new energy efficiency survey scheme, the demonstration project scheme and the information and advice provided by the Energy Efficiency Office.

Mr. Hanley: I am encouraged by that reply. How are industrial users of energy comparing with public sector users, particularly as there is now a need to conserve energy throughout the country?

Mr. Buchan-Smith: The main energy efficiency campaign was launched only at the end of last year. I am glad to say that the response at the breakfasts publicising the campaign throughout the country was extremely encouraging. All the evidence from the follow-up programme indicates a high take-up.

Mr. Freud: Why does the Minister think that people who work in public buildings should worry about energy conservation when MPs, as a result of Friday's payroll vote, are being given cash incentives to use energy-inefficient vehicles? Does he agree that it is now self-financing to sell a second-hand Mini and to buy a second-hand Rolls-
 Royce?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to public buildings.

Mr. Forman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative. Will he look again at the terms of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 to see whether it is possible to reduce both the maximum and minimum temperatures stipulated in that Act?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I shall examine it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has responsibility for these matters.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers.

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the current dispute in the coal industry.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the present position concerning the industrial dispute in the mining industry.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the current situation in the coal industry.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the miners' dispute.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the coal strike.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the dispute in the coal industry.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): When I first met the leaders of the three mining unions in June 1983 I made it clear to them that if they and the National Coal Board wished to come to me with joint proposals on the future of the industry I would always be willing to meet them.
In prolonged talks last week, I regret that the National Union of Mineworkers was unwilling to accept the proposals of the National Coal Board, under which every miner who wished to remain in the industry would be able to do so, and any pit which was safe would remain open, so long as its operation was beneficial to the industry. At the same time, massive capital investment would continue.
In most areas where miners have had the opportunity of a ballot, the men have continued to work. Stocks of coal at power stations remain at a very high level, and have reduced over past weeks by only 1·5 per cent. per week.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State agree that his reply ducks the question on the Order Paper? Is it not now obvious that there will be no settlement between the two parties to the mining dispute? Does he further agree that he has an obligation, through his high office, to meet the president of the NUM just as he has been meeting the chairman of the National Coal Board, the second party to the dispute? If he is not prepared to do that, are we to take it that he is prepared to sit back and join the Prime Minister in a shoot-out?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like to hear this, but they are going to hear it. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not intervene, history will record him as being as sadistic and callous as the witch of Downing street? Is he further aware that, even worse from his point of view, he will never be leader of the Tory party?

Mr. Walker: I have repeated on many occasions that the Government have intervened on a massive scale to ensure that no single compulsory redundancy takes place, that massive investment will continue and that a decent wage will always be available. Mr. Scargill has publicly


made it clear on every occasion that he is interested only in every pit, no matter how uneconomic, remaining working. Everyone agrees that at the talks last week the NCB was understanding and did all sorts of things to make a settlement possible, but there was no move at all by the NUM.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Following that answer and in view of the anxiety in some circles about the effect upon a mining community of closure, can my right hon. Friend tell the House anything about the operations of the enterprise company? Will he confirm that it is organised and sponsored by the NCB, designed to bring new business to the areas concerned and, if operative, would do much to remove the understandable anxieties of closely linked communities?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is aware that there have been many pit closures under all Governments in the past, and a whole range of regional aid policies have been applied. I am pleased to say that the NCB has announced the creation of a new enterprise company which will certainly provide funds to assist new businesses coming into the areas for accommodation and for professional advice. There is no doubt that that is an addition to all the services which have been provided, and which are so important for the mining communities.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the miners, who have been on strike for five months and have made enormous personal sacrifices, are supported by their wives and communities in trying to defend not only their jobs but future jobs for their sons and grandsons? Is he further aware that vulgar and obscene abuse by the right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers simply shows that they have no awareness of the deep commitment that leads the miners to continue their battle for the future of their communities?

Mr. Walker: If the right hon. Gentleman were to tell the strikers and the families affected that this Government are paying the miners better than the Labour Government paid the miners and that this Government are investing twice as much cash as the Labour Government did, they might go back to work.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Basildon Labour party, which was collecting funds for striking miners in Billericay high street on Saturday, was using ballot boxes? Would it not be a better and more logical use of those boxes to take them to the mining communities and allow the miners to ballot on whether they want to be on strike?

Mr. Walker: It is an interesting fact that the day that Mr. Scargill announced that he was changing the rules on balloting, the Leader of the Opposition urged that a ballot should take place. Since Mr. Scargill has not taken advantage of that, the Leader of the Opposition has remained silent.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State concede that the role in which he has cast himself, as a slick salesman of sleekit against the NUM leadership, ill befits the dignity of his office? Does not the Prime Minister's slanderous remarks about the enemy within show that the Government do not in any way understand the deep commitment of people in my community — from Oakley, High Valleyfield, Blairhall and other communities—to defend

their communities and jobs? Unless the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister understand that, there is no hope for conciliaton in this vexed dispute.

Mr. Walker: One does not need to be much of a salesman to defend a position in which we have agreed to invest more than was envisaged in "Plan for Coal" and to ensure that there is not a single compulsory redundancy in the industry.

Mr. Adley: Is it not clear that Mr. Scargill and his friends are engaged in a political battle of propaganda? Is it not true that even if, at the end of the strike, Mr. Scargill is chopped into 1,000 pieces and fed to Mr. MacGregor's dog, Mr. Scargill will claim it as a propaganda victory to poison Mr. MacGregor? Will my right hon. Friend use every opportunity to point out to the people of this country the real and serious underlying issues that are at stake in the dispute?

Mr. Walker: The serious underlying issue is that the coal industry, with the investment envisaged, the potential for converting industries to coal and the potential for export markets, has a marvellous future. The tragedy is that this wholly unwarranted industrial action is jeopardising that future.

Mr. Foot: Does the Secretary of State not understand that the worst way to try to settle this grievous dispute —grievous to everyone and to the country—is for the Government to say that the miners or their leaders are the enemy within and to compare them with Fascist dictators? Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed to be associated with such a campaign? Will he demand that the Prime Minister comes to the House tomorrow and apologises to the miners of Britain?

Mr. Walker: No such remarks have been made about the miners—[Interruption.] In fact, the miners' interests are being undermined by political objectives which have nothing to do with the coal mining industry.

Mr. Skeet: As the Government have an impeccable case in this dispute, and as the prime purpose is political, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to mitigate loss by taking tougher action? Will he also do his best to encourage firms affected by secondary picketing to take a tough line?

Mr. Walker: The decision whether to take action on secondary picketing must be left to the people concerned in balancing the advantages and disadvantages of using the legal rights that they enjoy. The Government will do all that they can to ensure that the type of mob violence that has taken place throughout the dispute is effectively dealt with under the law. That is why, tragically and sadly, more than 4,000 arrests have had to be made.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State prepared to make representations on two matters for which he has no direct responsibility but for which he has a strong moral responsibility? First, will he seek to change the regulations by which PAYE refunds to miners are not being paid, remembering that there is great hardship and that it is the miners' own money? Are they not entitled to it? Secondly, is he aware that in my constituency some miners' children are now unable to get new shoes—[Interruption.] That interruption from Conservative Members shows their lack of sensitivity. Some miners' children are unable to get new shoes because of the strict interpretation that is being


placed on the regulations. Will he make strong and urgent representations to the Departments concerned on those matters for which he has responsibility?

Mr. Walker: The laws governing PAYE and social security apply universally across the country. It would be absurd to change regulations as a result of an industrial action in which no ballot has taken place and when one third of the miners are working.

Mr. Rost: When does my right hon. Friend expect to remove all restrictions on the import of coal, and when does he expect the NCB to start paying off miners who are anxious to leave the industry?

Mr. Walker: The second matter which my hon. Friend raises is for the NCB to consider. It is a pity that the desire of a number of miners to take early retirement— and thereby make jobs available for others — has been delayed by this industrial action. The answer to his first question is that imports are continuing.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most outrageous features of this dispute so far is that there has been no ballot of those who have been involved in this action for the last five months and who have been suffering so much hardship as a result? As the NCB has put forward new proposals on closures, does he feel that the time has come—he would also resolve some of the arguments that are going backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House—to put that new package from the NCB to the mineworkers?

Mr. Walker: I would very much welcome it if the NCB decided to put that package. It is difficult for employers to decide to put a package, particularly as, with the sort of victimisation that is going on at present in certain mining areas, I doubt whether such a ballot could be successfully conducted by the board. It is a matter of great regret that, certainly for the first time in our lifetime, a strike has been called without a ballot being held, and it is significant that one third of fields which have decided to hold ballots have been at work throughout the dispute.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As the factors which govern the viability of individual pits are, and always will be, infinitely varied, will my right hon. Friend tell the president of the NUM that many Conservative Members believe that the offer which is now available is too good to refuse and that, if refused by the NUM, should be withdrawn?

Mr. Walker: The wording that was offered last week was acceptable to every reasonable observer, and there was not one criticism suggesting that the NCB's offer was a bad or unfair one. It is a pity that that wording was not immediately acceptable.

Mr. Jack Thompson: At his next meeting with the chairman of the NCB, will the Secretary of State ask him about the number of pits that have already been closed, and the possible closures that may come after this dispute is over, not because of the inefficiency of the miners or their lack of productivity and effort, but because of bad management?

Mr. Walker: I cannot comment about the allegations of bad management of pits, but the formula suggested by the NCB is that if there are reserves of coal in a pit which, after investment, could he sensibly and beneficially obtained, work at that pit would continue.

Mr. Hickmet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Bill Sirs, chairman of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, said on Thursday that Mr. Arthur Scargill was prepared to bring about the collapse of the steel industry for his own political objectives, and that the support of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and of the National Union of Raliwaymen was based on similar political motives? Is that not a disgrace, and should not the Labour party dissociate itself from the leadership of the NUM?

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend; but I am pleased to say that, throughout the dispute, coal and iron ore have continued to be delivered to every steel plant in the country. I know that the House will be pleased to hear that the week before last steel production was at a higher level than it was before the dispute started.

Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that this dispute is about jobs and the preservation of jobs and communities? People find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has not met senior officals of the NUM in the past 20 weeks. Instead of hurling personal abuse, will the Secretary of State use his office to call both sides together? The talks were adjourned only last Wednesday. Will he ensure that they are resumed at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Walker: No, not when the only point on which Mr. Scargill says that he is unwilling to yield is the principle that every pit in the country, provided that it has reserves of coal, should continue to be operated, irrespective of huge economic losses. He has said that he will not give way, and he has repeated that before and after every meeting. As the right hon. Gentleman knows. at last week's meeting the NUM did not move at all.
The reality is that more and more miners, and the country as a whole, recognise that what is being offered by the NCB is in the interests of jobs. It is not in the interests of jobs by this industrial action to stop the capital investment programme, to lose markets, to stop the movement of coal conversion and to see the pits geologically deteriorate. If anybody is losing jobs, it is Mr. Scargill.

Offshore Oil Production

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what change he expects in offshore oil production by 1 January 1987 as compared with 1 January 1984.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The rate of offshore crude oil production in January 1984 was 2·52 million barrels per day. By 1987 the average rate of production is expected to be in the range of 1·6 million to 2·3 million barrels per day.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that we are all anxious to ensure that the level of offshore oil production continues at a reasonably high level because of the importance for onshore work of bringing new fields into production. Do the Government propose any changes with regard to future licensing to ensure a greater content of work being given to British firms than has been the case up to now?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What matters most of all, looking into the future and the kinds of fields that will be developed, is that the new technology that will be required


to work those fields is developed and generated in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the special new conditions that I have laid down in the ninth licensing round, which should make that possible.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of North sea oil exploration is three times higher than it was in 1980, thanks to the measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year?
Will my right hon. Friend further confirm reports that British industry, if it takes advantage of these measures, can have the best investment opportunity in the North sea that we have ever seen?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Last year, a record number of wells were drilled in the North sea. In the first half of this year, even last year's good figure has been improved upon by 30 per cent. The outlook for the future is very encouraging.

Mr. Hardy: Does not the Minister's answer suggest that, even by the ed of the present Parliament, we shall witness a decline in oil production? Does that not lead the right hon. Gentleman to the view that those of us who argue for a more moderate depletion rate have common sense on our side? Can we expect to see an end to self-sufficiency in oil during the early 1990s?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has ignored two things. First, all existing fields are performing better than expected. Secondly, if he had studied the estimates of new reserves he would have seen that they are at very much higher levels as a result of new work which has been done. We can look forward with optimism to future production.

Mr. Kennedy: Further to the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Wallace), does he agree that his statement about the rundown of reserves will add to the anxiety of those who, like many in my constituency, depend heavily on the onshore construction business? The Minister is to meet a delegation from Ross and Cromarty district council later this week about the current dearth of orders there. Will he have anything to tell that delegation about additional steps to be taken by the Government as the rundown takes place?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not refer to a rundown in reserves. I referred to a rundown in production as a result of the size of the earlier fields. Reserves are at a higher level than at any time, but some of the fields have yet to be discovered or developed.
At present there are potential orders worth about £150 million to £200 million, which will be available over the next 12 months for British industry to take advantage of. Provided that firms are competitive in price, quality and delivery, a large quantity of that work will come to British yards and companies.

South Wales (Coal Industry)

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the problems of the coal industry in south Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): The chairman of the NCB has sound plans for the

future development of the coal industry and its markets. The future of the south Wales coalfield will not be helped by miners damaging the steel industry and encouraging steel plants to look elsewhere for coal supplies.

Mr. Powell: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has said, this is a fight for jobs. When the Minister meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, will he remind him that three collieries have been closed in the Ogmore constituency since 1979? Wyndham Western in Nantymoel was closed on 7 January this year. There has been a total loss of 1,500 jobs in the Ogmore constituency. Is the Minister aware that one of the collieries on the hit list is St. John's colliery in Maesteg, closure of which would mean a further loss of 842 jobs? Is he aware that at present unemployment in Maesteg stands at 24 per cent. and that, if the colliery is closed, male unemployment will shoot up to 45 per cent?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the jobs of miners depend upon the number of customers that can be found for the coal that they produce. I ask the hon. Gentleman to apply his mind to the effect on steel workers at Llanwern? If those workers are denied access to the raw materials for producing steel, that will in turn bring about a substantial reduction in jobs not only in the steel plants but in the coal industry. A total of £20 million was invested in south Wales in the past financial year. The prospects for investment this year would have been higher, but because of the dispute all the bets are off.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not true that the coal strike has been very damaging to jobs in the steel industry in south Wales and that that in turn threatens jobs within the coal industry supplying the steel works? In any discussions that he may have with the chairman of the NCB, will my hon. Friend remind the chairman of the vital importance of safeguarding the position of those miners who have carried on working throughout the strike, as at Point of Ayr in north Wales?

Mr. Shaw: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those miners in north Wales who have continued to work. They recognise that the future of the industry vitally depends on producing coal from effective mines at prices that the market will accept.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Would it be too much to ask the Secretary of State to be a statesman for once, instead of perpetually attacking the NUM leadership? Is he aware that that is counter-productive? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the dividing line between the two sides is marginal? If he would take a more sensible stance and intervene in the dispute, it could be resolved very quickly.

Mr. Shaw: If that is the case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a mine that has no beneficial product for Wales is a mine that must have serious consideration for closure.

Mr. Marlow: What hope can my hon. Friend offer to miners' wives in south Wales, such as the miner's wife who wrote to me —because she was ashamed of her constituency MP—saying that her husband had been on strike for 19 weeks and wants to go back to work? They have a nice house and she is frightened that the windows will be broken or smeared with paint. She is frightened that her husband will be injured by what she calls Scargill's bully boys.

Mr. Shaw: It is well evident that there are intimidatory activities going on that bear no relationship to the average miner's view of his industry and certainly no relationship to the standards of behaviour in south Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that the south Wales mining communities deeply resent and reject the squalid comparison made by the Prime Minister last week between the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands and the miners' strike? Is he aware how many youngsters from our mining communities fought in the Falklands for the rights of those islanders, 7,000 miles away, to remain in their community? Is he aware that miners are also fighting to remain in their communities? Will he at least dissociate himself from the worst remarks made by the Prime Minister last week?

Mr. Shaw: The remarks of my right hon. Friend have already provoked a great deal of comment. She was referring to the danger of militant activities undermining the state. The hon. Gentleman's view of these matters is fair and I am sure that he agrees that the undermining of democratic institutions starts with those who refuse to accept the right in the rule book for members to be balloted before being called out on strike.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Commission about alternative sources of energy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have no plans for bilateral discussions with the European Commission. A Research Council is scheduled for October.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient research into alternative sources of energy is being undertaken by the Community? Are the Government pressing it to increase the research programme?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If my hon. Friend looks at what has been done in the Community and at what national states have done to complement the Community programme, he will see that considerable worthwhile work is going on. I am sure he agrees that it is important that the work done by member states is co-ordinated so that the Community programme is effective.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the atmospheric pollution caused by the burning of coal should be assessed as a cost and be taken into account when we consider how to meet our future energy requirements?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That must be taken into account, but one must remember that some alternative forms of energy also have an impact on the environment in various ways. We cannot look at one energy source in isolation.

Coal Industry (Retirements)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many persons employed by the National Coal Board retired from, or voluntarily left, coal mining in the last year.

Mr. Peter Walker: I understand from the National Coal Board that 21,641 men voluntarily left coal mining in the financial year 1983–84.

Mr. Chapman: Is not that figure in stark contrast to the fact that no mine worker has been forcibly made redundant in the past year? Bearing in mind that the Government have also vastly improved the redundant mine workers' payment scheme, are not those two facts evidence that the Government are adopting a sensible, sensitive and statesmanlike approach to a great industry, which offers our country a great future?

Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that the early retirement and the voluntary redundancy provisions are more generous than those in any other industry in this country and more generous than those in any other coal industry in the world.

Mr. Bell: As the right hon. Gentleman says that 21,641 men took voluntary redundancy last year, why on earth did he allow the NCB to put forward a provocative package that has resulted in a 19-week strike?

Mr. Walker: The provocative package to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a package which contained a guarantee that there would not be a single compulsory redundancy.

Mr. Eggar: How many coal faces have been irretrievably lost as a result of the present strike, and how many jobs are likely to be lost as a result of the general geological deterioration of pits?

Mr. Walker: It is impossible to give an accurate figure. In reply to another question we mentioned the collieries that are now causing concern, but there is no doubt that serious geological damage is being done.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State has given his interpretation of the negotiations that were adjourned last week, but, having spoken to both sides in the dispute—unlike the right hon. Gentleman— I can tell him that that is not my reading of the situation. Will he now meet Mr. Scargill and listen to his interpretation of the talks?

Mr. Walker: I have informed all union leaders connected with my Department that if any of them at any time wishes to talk to us, we would be only too willing to respond. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the accurate interpretation of those talks. He knows that the Leader of the Opposition, presumably on somebody's advice, said that the leaders of the NUM had asked for talks to go on the next morning, but had been refused. However, I am pleased to say that the NCB has issued a statement saying that that was totally untrue.

Electricity Sales

Mr. Hayes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of electricity sales in 1982 and 1983 was accounted for by industrial users and domestic consumers, respectively.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The proportions of total electricity sales in England and Wales accounted for by the main groups of consumer were, domestic consumers in 1982, 37 per cent.; in 1983, 36 per cent.: industrial consumers 38 per cent. in both years, and commercial consumers 21 per cent. in both years.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, and for all that he and his Department are doing to help the heavy users, but will he bear in mind that heavy users such as the glass industry have enough problems with


foreign I mports? Will he do all he can to review the situation and to give more help to heavy users, particularly the glass industry?

Mr. Shaw: I respect my hon. Friend's interest in the glass industry, and no doubt it stems from the very large cullet plant established recently in his constituency. I can assure him that much has been done to bring United Kingdom prices well into line with those in the rest of the EC, and the CBI is now reasonably satisfied with that. There is, however, a small minority—roughly 2 per cent. — of firms for which there is some competitive disadvantage, and I very much hope that that problem can be gradually resolved in the intensive electricity sectors.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is it not true that industries which use electricity desperately need cheap electricity if they are to sell their goods abroad? Is that not another reason why we simply must have a modem and cost-effective coal mining industry? Is it not, in addition, another reason why we simply must find a solution to the mining dispute which enables us to have cheap coal and cheaper energy prices?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At 86 per cent., coal remains the largest single component of electricity fuel generation costs, and the future price of coal is crucial to the future price of electricity.

Mr. Hoyle: How does the Minister measure prices here against those in European countries? Time after time industries, and particularly the processing industry, have complained about unfair competition and have pointed, in particular, to countries such as France where electricity for bulk users is far cheaper. Why is something not done to assist industry, instead of just talking about it?

Mr. Shaw: There are two answers to that question. First, the CBI and not the Government commissioned the report, and the CBI has all the evidence from its members and consumers. Secondly, the cheaper electricity in France is entirely due to a very substantial increase in nuclear power. I assume that the hon. Gentleman applauds that.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the total cost of the coal dispute.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The total cost of the dispute will depend on how long it lasts. To date, one thing is clear —the dispute has cost the miners themselves some £380 million in lost wages.

Mr. Skeet: I agree that the cost will probably depend on the length of the dispute, but will my hon. Friend confirm the view that I have heard, that the total cost to date is in excess of, or perhaps approaching, £10 billion? Does he recognise that it is not the Government, but the public, who ultimately pay?

Mr. Shaw: I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that many purely speculative figures are being bandied about in regard to the ultimate cost of the dispute. The fact remains that the public will eventually be at risk if our coal industry is not competitive in terms of price and therefore produces more expensive electricity.

Mr. Woodall: Does the Minister agree that the dispute has cost far too much already? Will he have a word in the

Secretary of State's ear to ask him if he will meet the chairman of the NCB to do one thing—to tell him that he is sacked? Does he agree that the chairman has been an utter disaster and that it is time that he retired and took his old-age pension?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman, who should know better on these matters, should recognise that the chairman of the NCB has asked for further major capital investment in the industry and has gone ahead with the Asfordby project. It is the chairman of the NCB who wants improvements in the redundant mine workers' payments scheme to ensure that not one man is made redundant compulsorily and it is the chairman of the NCB who believes in the future, when coal can be produced at prices that will lead to an increased volume in the market.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that we saw a shudder go through the Government Front Bench when the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) suggested that the cost of the miners' dispute might be £10 billion? None of us has used that figure before. Does he agree that the dispute will be damaging and costly? In answer to a previous question, the Secretary of State denied that the NUM had asked that the talks that broke down should carry on into the morning. Is that not a classic illustration of why the Secretary of State has a responsibility to meet both sides to resolve this damaging and costly dispute?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there have been 35 hours of negotiation on proposals that were made at the NUM's request as far back as 6 March. He also knows that the negotiations have resulted in a close examination of the proposals and in some changes in how the NCB is presenting its case to the NUM. All that is required is some recognition of the fact that the NUM must accept that the closure of uneconomic pits is an essential ingredient in the restructuring of the industry.

Sleipner Gas Field

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation of the Sleipner gas field negotiations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: A decision will be taken as soon as possible.

Mr. Favell: I remind my right hon. Friend that there is already a large trade imbalance with Norway, whereby we take more than one third of its exports and Norway takes only 11·8 per cent. of our exports. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Department has very much in mind the great opportunity for British exporters to export to Norway if the contract is concluded, especially as it will bring approximately £20 billion to Norway—a country with only 4 million people?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that aspect of trade with Norway. I assure him that I will bear his point in mind. I am sure he will would be the first to acknowledge that the Sleipner gas issue raises a number of matters of great importance.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister acknowledge that one of the possibilities that has been aired about the Sleipner field would extend the lifetime of the Flotta terminal in my constituency? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner the decision is made the better, because uncertainty has a damaging effect?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not believe in just reaching decisions. I believe in reaching the correct decisions.

Mr. Rost: If the Government approve the deal, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the British offshore industry will have a fair chance of participating in the work?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is a matter to which the report of the Select Committee on Energy has rightly drawn attention. I assure my hon. Friend that that is a point that I will bear in mind during my discussions with my counterparts in Norway.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister gives us an assurance that he will not link the decision on Sleipner with any decision on direct export of gas to Europe from the British North sea, because that will have serious and considerable consequences on depletion policy and prices? Will he make a statement to the House about the decision which raises, as he pointed out, many serious issues about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked repeatedly at Question Time?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One must look at all aspects of this matter, including exports. Any Government would be failing in their duty if they did no do so. I fully understand the interest of the House, which has been exemplified at Question Time for a long period. It is the intention of myself and my right hon. Friend to keep the House properly and fully informed once the decision is reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Services

Mr. Adley: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the workings of the services of the House, in so far as they relate to his responsibility.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am sure that improvement is always possible. If my hon. Friend has a specific issue to raise, I shall gladly draw it to the attention of the Services Committee.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Might I take him at his word and ask whether he will do something about the lift service in this building? Is he aware that it has deteriorated recently and that reports to that effect to the usual channels get nowhere? I am raising the matter on the Floor of the House in an attempt to get something done.

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will not be wholly reassured when I tell him that the lifts are essentially the responsibility of the Property Services Agency, which has an extensive lift improvement scheme. I shall therefore look forward all the more to hearing from my hon. Friend and taking up whatever point he has in mind.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House on radio? Does he agree that that broadcasting would be greatly improved if he were now to innovate and televise the House?

Mr. Biffen: I think that my hon. Friend's question strays just a little far from the original one. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not drift into consideration of

televising the House. I should have thought that if there was anything wrong with the sound broadcasting of the House it was more to do with our contribution than the editing.

Office Accommodation

Mr. Dormand: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress being made in providing additional office accommodation for hon. Members.

Mr. Biffen: The Services Committee has recently made a report to the House, including the design brief for phase 1 of the new parliamentary building. I hope that the report will be published shortly.

Mr. Dormand: Is not it a fact that, after the great fanfare some months ago about improving office accommodation for hon. Members, the work that the right hon. Gentleman has just described is considerably behind schedule? What progress is being made on the principle that the Government adopted some time ago in regard to moving staff from the Palace: to make more accommodation in this building available to hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of the charge of having issued any fanfare on anything, least of all on anything to do with my responsibilities. I do not believe that it is true that the schedule for this work has fallen behind. My answer today is precisely the same as my answer when the hon. Gentleman last questioned me on this matter — the premises should be available in 1990. The hon. Gentleman asked how much additional accommodation will be made available in the Palace of Westminster with the utilisation of the Bridge street building. The conventions of the House do not enable me to anticipate the report that will be made available in early August, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that about 100 desk spaces will be made available in the Palace of Westminster as a result of the new plans.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend refer to the appropriate authority or committee the idea of buying the Crown Agents building and moving some people who do not have to be here out of the Houses of Parliament so that people who need to be here can have accommodation?

Mr. Biffen: I shall happily look into that matter in the context in which the question was put.

Mr. Bell: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great disappointment among new Members of Parliament at the fact that they are unable to fulfil their parliamentary and constitutional duties because of the lack of available space? Will he bear that aspect in mind when looking at the programme for the future and ensure that that programme does not fall behind?

Mr. Biffen: I expect that all those new Members will be seeking reselection, notwithstanding the hazards to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait and to note the tangible benefits of the development of the Bridge street site, because, frankly, nothing else of comparable value is available on the horizon.

Mr. Budgen: Is there any evidence that hon. Members work better in the House or in their constituencies if they have larger or more comfortable offices?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that there is no evidence whatsoever to support that idea, but that does not diminish the passion that attends these debates.

Terrace (Access)

Mr. Janner: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is satisfied with arrangements for access to the Terrace during the time of restoration of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to all those who are concerned with the current restoration and cleaning of the face of the mother of Parliaments our congratulations on their superb job and the pleasure that they give to those who work here and see that work? How long will the rest of the job take? Will it include the Victoria tower? What will be the cost?

Mr. Biffen: I readily acknowledge the warm tribute which the hon. and learned Gentleman paid to those concerned with the restoration work on the Palace of Westminster and the success that has attended that work hitherto. Work on the Terrace elevation, which will be commenced in September 1984, will last for two years. There will be four stages in the completion of that work, and every care will be taken to minimise inconvenience to Members and to the House generally. I shall look into the cost and inform the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Are the authorities confident that the Terrace is secure against terrorist access from the river?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Financial Management Initiative

Mr. Eggar: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are engaged in the implementation of the financial management initiative.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): As these changes take root in Departments there is increasingly no clear-cut distinction between staff working in connection with the financial management initiative and the line managers and others who plan and allocate resources. During 1983–84 some 300 staff were directly engaged in developing and implementing the plans published last year.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that the progress made on FMI is extremely encouraging? When does he expect that his Department will publish the next White Paper? Is he satisfied that Departments are making sufficient information public about the implementation of FMI within their Department? Recently a number of Departments have refused to place the information in the Library.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouraging remarks. The White Paper which was promised for the end of July, will, I think, be published on Wednesday of this week. It will have a separate chapter covering each Department's contribution to the work. My hon. Friend will be aware that I favour the widest possible publication.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Minister ensure that this FMI does not result in local managers following the example of the assistant group controller who is alleged to have told Inland Revenue staff that they should reduce their work load by tearing up letters from taxpayers and ignoring refunds for previous years to which taxpayers may be entitled?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have seen press reports to that effect, but I have no idea of the truth of the matter. I shall certainly be looking into it and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that all Departments in Whitehall are now fully engaged in the FMI? What is his latest estimate of the financial savings expected to flow from it?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is better for me not to pre-empt the White Paper that is coming later this week. I ask my hon. Friend to await its publication. I am sure that he will study it carefully and see that encouraging progress is being made.

Mr. Dalyell: What instructions have been given to civil servants to draw up contingency plans for clawing back the £1,000 that has been given to many employees at Cheltenham should the judgment of Mr. Justice Glidewell be upheld by Lord Lane and his colleagues?

Mr. Hayhoe: If such contingency plans were needed, and I do not comment upon that at all, they would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Dr. McDonald: Should not the FMI be far more interested than it is with the quality of service? Is the Minister aware that in the Inland Revenue the count of unanswered post at the moment stands at over 3·5 million, much the same as it was last year? Future plans to reduce Inland Revenue staff by one in four—far more than is needed for computerisation—mean that the public can expect no better service in the future as a result of this initiative than they have now.

Mr. Hayhoe: I repudiate the broad thrust of what the hon. Lady is saying, although I admire her ingenuity in bringing that aspect of Treasury affairs into Question Time today.

Security (MPO)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the Management and Personnel Office's responsibilities for security in the Civil Service.

Mr. Hayhoe: As shown in its management document 1984–85, which was published on 15 June 1984, the Management and Personnel Office's responsibilities for security in the Civil Service are to formulate and monitor personnel and physical security policy.

Mr. Dubs: Is it unusual for persons appointed by the Civil Service Commission to be refused appointments by the Government Departments to which they have been allocated, presumably on the ground of their political views? I hasten to say that I am not talking about the Ministry of Defence, but about the Departments of the Environment and of Transport.

Mr. Hayhoe: I think I can answer that, in general terms, yes, it is unusual. I would be prepared to draw the


attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend to any particular example that the hon. Gentleman cares to give to me.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the International Labour Organisation found that security was not an adequate ground upon which to exclude people from their rights to freedom of information, have the Government had any discussion with that organisation as to how they are to retain their membership of it while banning that right for the civil servants at GCHQ issue?

Mr. Hayhoe: As I thought the hon. Gentleman was well aware, matters concerning GCHQ are primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Matters concerning the International Labour Organisation are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. In any case, the GCHQ is now sub judice because it is before the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister able to tell the House how many employees of the Management and Personnel Office attended comprehensive schools?

Mr. Hayhoe: With notice, I shall try to obtain that information from the Department's records.

Social Equality

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he has completed the evaluation of the surveys of the ethnic origins of non-industrial civil servants in the north-west and the county of Avon; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hayhoe: A report on the surveys is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister give the House the assurance that once the report is available and has been evaluated—which means now—the Government will cease their current scandalous practice of refusing in all their Departments to carry out the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality—which has had a code in force on the subject since 1 April this year—so that we may see the Government taking a lead in being fair to people instead of dragging behind those whom they are encouraging to go forward?

Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that the Government have taken and will continue to take a lead in seeking to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in employment in the Civil Service. I hope that that view is supported in every quarter of the House.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that affirmative action in any respect is not the answer to the problem, and that merit and qualification will always be the main criteria for appointments to positions of the sort that have been mentioned?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes of course merit must be a criterion, but it is also very important, as I hope my hon. Friend will agree, that racial discrimination does not occur anywhere in this country, and particularly in employment in the public service.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that only by monitoring to check whether racial discrimination is taking place can we feel assured that the Civil Service is

applying a true equal opportunities policy? If the results of the experiment are positive, will the Minister introduce a system throughout the Civil Service at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Hayhoe: A decision on future surveys will be made as soon as possible. Discussions are taking place with some of the unions, which have appeared to change their policy towards these matters recently.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current mining dispute.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about the miners' strike.

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.

Mr. Peter Walker: I refer to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).

Mr. Hunt: As Mr. Scargill's forecasts of the level of coal stocks have repeatedly proved to be so wildly inaccurate, should it not now be clear to every miner in the land not only that Mr. Scargill is an isolated and discredited figure but that his words can no longer be trusted on this matter or anything else?

Mr. Walker: It is true that before the beginning of the dispute it was said that there were only eight weeks' supply of coal at the power stations. That was repeated in March, April and May, and again more recently. As my hon. Friend said, the allegation has always been proved to be totally unjustified. There are at present many months of stocks at the power stations.

Mr. Eadie: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must agree, from the exchanges across the Floor today, that he and the Government are the discredited people. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the strategy of the Government of which he is a Cabinet Member is to starve the miners into submission, and that that strategy will not succeed?

Mr. Walker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, after a ballot, one third of the miners are working, and if he wishes to accuse anyone of endeavouring to starve people into submission, he has done so in respect of a Government who have invested more in coal than any other, and guaranteed that there will be no compulsory redundancies.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 23, which was tabled in my name, has been missed out.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 23 refers to lead in petrol. We have been dealing with the mining industry in Question No. 21. The hon. Gentleman's question was not included in that grouping.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 46 was tabled by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), a Liberal Member, asking how many hours the House has sat after midnight. Have you had any indication from the hon. Gentleman as to why he was not present to ask his question at 3.15 pm?

Mr. Speaker: No, I have had no indication why the hon. Member was not here.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may have come to your attention that today's Order Paper contains 114 questions tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the subject of the Falkland Islands. That will cost the taxpayer a large sum of money. Would it not have been a better plan for the hon. Gentleman to write a letter instead of tabling so many questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member has the right to table questions, if he judges that he wishes to have the answers to them.

Black Report

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, those of us who represent coastal constituencies have been anxious for some time about the publication of the Black report dealing with the inquiry into the possible link between discharges from Sellafield and the incidence of leukemia. I understand from the press that the report has been published today, but there is to be no statement by the Minister responsible.
This is a matter of public concern and, by a strange coincidence, the Minister for Health is present and could have made a statement. As today's business is not onerous and a statement could have been fitted in easily—there were four statements the other day—perhaps you will be able to help us, Mr. Speaker.
Parliament is about to go into recess. Many of us feel that the DHSS hopes to get the report out and forgotten about without parliamentary scrutiny. Can you help us in any way to get a statement, or some kind of discussion or debate on the issue, before Parliament goes into recess until 22 October?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am not responsible for statements in the House. In any case, I notice that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has tabled a question for written answer on that very subject.

Mr. Foulkes: But that is my point.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Nothing further can arise. It is not a matter for me, so there is no point in the hon. Gentleman pursuing it.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Another point of order?

Mr. Janner: Yes, Sir. You will recall that, in answer to Question No. 49, the Minister said that a document on ethnic surveys of non-industrial staff in the Civil Service in the north-west and Avon——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are reverting to Question Time. We have already dealt with the matter. I must say to the whole House that it is an abuse for hon. Members to rise on a point of order, to put a further question or to elucidate an answer that has already been given.

Mr. Janner: indicated dissent

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no use the hon. and learned Member shaking his head. it is not a matter for me. I cannot deal with the matter, as it is for the Minister responsible.

Mr. Janner: I am not seeking to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot do what the hon. and learned Gentleman asks. It is an abuse to raise, on a point of order, a matter that is not for the Chair but seeks a ministerial answer. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the answers that he has received, he must find another way of pursuing the matter.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take further points of order on a matter on which I cannot rule.

Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that you can.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I cannot take further points of order on this.

Adjournment Motions

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Wednesday 1 August, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Wednesday next. A ballot will be held on Thursday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Orders of the Day — Health and Social Security Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3

USE OF TITLES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 16, after first "the" insert "taking or"

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10.

Mr. Clarke: All the amendments relate to clause 3, which, as hon. Members will recall from our previous debates, is concerned with the so-called protection of certain titles. That means that we are ensuring that the titles of "optometrist" and "optician" can be used only by people with suitable qualifications when members of the general public expect to be able to know whether they have those qualifications.
The general approach that the Government adopted on the matter met with approval in both Houses because we were moving to strengthen the existing law to some extent, but there was a disagreement in another place about the exact wording of the clause that the Government had chosen to give effect to our desired policy. Lord Mottistone and others in another place said that they would prefer it if the wording of clause 3 were somewhat closer to the wording of the Opticians Act 1958, which previously protected certain titles. The wording in that Act covers both taking as well as using those titles. It also covers them being used either alone or in combination with any other words.
We have been persuaded that it is sensible to apply the formulation in connection with the protection that the Bill extends to the title "optician". It will help those who may be called upon to interpret the statute in future. I accept, upon reflection, that there was a possibility that otherwise the courts might try to look for substantive reasons behind the change in wording that was previously proposed when no substantive reasons and no substantial changes were envisaged.
The only other change arises from amendments Nos. 4 and 9. In another place, their Lordships preferred to replace the negative expression, "not have been reasonable" with the positive one, "have been unreasonable". Upon reflection, we were persuaded that that makes the intention clearer.
The result is that their Lordships have made certain drafting amendments to the Bill as it left the House that take us back more closely to the wording of the 1958 Act. The Government are content to accept that and trust that the House will agree to the amendments.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I would not wish to argue that we did not agree with the Lords in the amendments. Having argued in Committee that some improvements were necessary to protect the title of

"optician" from pseudo-opticians and various other people taking advantage of the public, we welcome both the improvements that were made on Report, which we discussed on 2 May, and what we think are improvements in the wording, which were decided upon in the Lords. I understand, however, that those improvements were made without the entire approval of the Government Benches. I suppose that the Government are getting fairly used to having amendments passed in the Lords that were not promoted by the Government. It is an experience that Labour Governments have been accustomed to over the years. It appears that this Conservative Government are having a taste of their own medicine.
In protecting the title of optician, it is intended to protect opticians and, indirectly, the public by not allowing unqualified people to claim to be opticians and to have technical knowledge that they do not possess. Ironically, that flies in the face of the whole intention of the Bill, the Government's basic intention being to downgrade the optical professions by allowing glasses to be sold by people who know nothing about the subject. It is ironic to seek in this way to protect those professions when the Bill will undermine all that they have stood for over the years, including the concept that only a qualified optician is entitled to make up and fit out spectacles. The Government have made it clear, however, that they support the concept of ignorant prescribing.
It is always difficult to know where we stand when nods, winks and half-promises are given in the Commons about changes that might be introduced in the Lords. From Second Reading onwards, right through the Committee and Report stages, we have been waiting for someone to honour the undertakings given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading to protect not just the opticians but the people who turn to them because they need glasses to be prescribed. The Secretary of State has said all along that he is prepared to consider further protection, especially for people who need extremely complicated prescriptions, against the possibility of glasses being prescribed by someone who is not up to the task.
That semi-promise has been made constantly, but it does not seem to have been honoured in any of the Lords amendments. Perhaps the Minister will explain the reason for that. I hope that the answer will be that the undertaking can be honoured in regulations even if it is not enshrined in statute. Nevertheless, I hope that on this occasion the Government will give a clear and genuine commitment rather than the vague undertakings given in Committee and on 2 May and the even vaguer undertakings given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading before Christmas.
Therefore, although we welcome the minor changes made in the Lords amendments, we look to the Minister to explain why the more major change that we had expected has not been made. Perhaps the Government intended to introduce an amendment in the other place but decided that regulations would be better in case the recalcitrant peers voted against the amendment.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I am delighted that the Government are supporting these drafting amendments. I regret that they have not gone further in protecting both the title of optician and the public at large, but, although these are minor, drafting amendments, it is no doubt better that one sinner should be called to repentance than that 10 saints find their way to heaven.
I wish to follow two points raised by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). First, in view of the Government's willingness to make the matter much clearer, I had hoped that the Bill would make clearer to the general public the vital distinction between an ophthalmic optician and a dispensing optician. Hon. Members who are familiar with such matters are aware of the distinction.
The Bill destroys 30 years of tradition among dispensing opticians. The Minister is optimistic. He hopes that eventually the public will have some protection. He maintains that even someone who goes to Woolworth's for glasses must take an incomprehensible prescription which no one but a dispensing optician will understand.
Nothing concentrates one's mind on a problem more than experiencing the problem oneself. I have just picked up the second pair of spectacles dispensed for me in the last three weeks. Thank goodness the National Health Service has a superb ophthalmic department at Westminster Hospital. The legislation is not yet on the statute book, so I am still able to use all the facilities that I have used for 30 years.
The Minister says that in protecting the optician he is also protecting the public, but the amendments for which we hoped have not been approved. I have two intra-ocular implants. I am perhaps the original bionic man with two false ears and two false eyes. I return to Westminster hospital tomorrow for a possible third pair of spectacles. The amendments passed by the Lords are acceptable and welcome, but the Government should have gone further.
Recognised opticians are able to deal with elderly people who have had cataracts removed. An elderly person might need as many as six changes of spectacles within two years of having a cataract peeled. At present, spectacles can be borrowed while the changes are made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered my parliamentary questions about the system in good faith, but he did not check sufficiently. There are discrepancies between ophthalmic departments in hospitals as there are between contracting opticians. The service depends entirely upon which hospital one goes to and which contractor is employed. Elderly people who have had cataracts peeled might be involved in considerable expense under the Bill because under the old system as the cataract healed and the lens and focus changed new glasses were provided.
I thank the good Lord for small mercies, because this Bill now provides facilities nearer those offered in the Opticians Act 1958. However, we should have been more than grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had seen the light further down the tunnel and if his focus had been a little more concentrated on the importance of the optician.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Throughout the progress of the legislation hon. Members from all sides have opposed what it does to the optician and ophthalmic services. We have been given repeated assurances by Ministers, particularly by the Secretary of State at the end of last year, that the complex prescriptions aspect would be re-examined and that the Bill would be redrafted.
Some changes have been made, but from exchanges in the House of Lords last week it seems that the Lords remain unsatisfied about that aspect of the Bill. They were not convinced that the amendments, although welcome,

were sufficient to overcome the practical problems that the legislation will cause for those needing complex prescriptions. Even at this late stage, we hope that the Government will give an assurance that they and the Department will take further action. We have been through all the arguments, so there is no point in rehashing them now.
As I have told the Minister, areas such as mine, which include vast rural parts as well as conurbations, will face many practical difficulties with dispensing services. I am sure that the concern felt in those areas is reflected in rural areas in England and Wales. I plead with the Minister to give the House further assurances, because, frankly, the amendments in no way match the expectations raised by the promises given by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the other place was not satisfied either, although it, like us, was happy to accept the amendments.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) hinted that this was another case of the other place forcing an unwilling Government to accept its views and change policy. However, the amendments were moved in another place by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Glenarthur, on behalf of the Government. I accept that they reflect a change of view in the drafting of the clause, which came about after we listened to the arguments of the noble Lord Mottistone and others. Both this House and another place agreed with what we were trying to achieve in clause 3, and if those briefed by opticians in another place believed that a certain form of words achieved that objective rather better than the original words, it did not seem worth arguing about. We listened to the argument on drafting, just as we listened in a constructive and reasonable manner to all the arguments put to us during the passage of the Bill.
There is no inconsistency between our anxiety to protect the title "optician" in clause 3 and the general policy of the Bill. The general policy is to extend choice and competition to the general public when obtaining spectacles. Parliament, probably accidentally, gave a total monopoly to qualified opticians to sell spectacles, frames, lenses and even frames without lenses. As the Office of Fair Trading report shows, that has had an unfortunate effect on the service given to the public. The quality of dispensing and eyesight testing in Britain is extremely good, but prices have been higher than necessary for some spectacles and optical goods because of the lack of competition and choice.
However, choice exercised by the public should be informed choice. We have never denied that a qualified optician has certain skills and the benefit of certain training, which are not available to others. Therefore, a member of the public is entitled to know whether the person with whom he is dealing has those qualifications and training before he decides whether to pay extra—if there is any extra — for the services of a qualified optician rather than the services of his competitor round the corner.
We must ensure that people use the title "optician" only where it is reasonable to allow them to do so and that it is not used by unqualified persons so that members of the public are not misled into believing that they are qualified. That has been the whole point of trying to get clause 3 right, and I believe that that is what we have eventually achieved.
Having been reasonable on that point, we have been reminded of one or two other undertakings that we certainly intend to honour so that we can ensure that the public are protected in other ways.
The first relates to those who require the most powerful lenses and who have the most complicated prescriptions. Throughout the passage of the Bill, people, including the three hon. Members who have spoken today, have been concerned about the extra expense that might be imposed on some patients who need particularly powerful lenses. There has been a tendency on the part of some commentators to exaggerate the bill that might face such people.
We are removing the general subsidy under the general optical service from everybody except children and those on low incomes who at present qualify for free glasses or reduced charges. However, the general subsidy which we are removing from the rest of the public is often exaggerated. The average subsidy for a pair of spectacles is only £5. The majority of patients get a subsidy of only £2 from the general optical service when they buy NHS glasses. Those with the most powerful lenses rarely, if ever, receive a subsidy of more than £30.
For that reason, it is inconceivable that any individual could find that the increase in charges for a pair of glasses could exceed £30 above what he or she is paying at present for glasses. In fact, they will be rare and exceptional cases and I believe that the new competitive climate which the Bill introduces will so reduce the general price of spectacles that an increase of £30 is unlikely.
Amazing figures were put forward to show how spectacle prices would rise. For example, it was suggested by some that glasses at present costing £30 would go up to perhaps £90; that was about the highest estimate I ever saw. People, especially pensioners, faced inflated fears as they listened to people campaigning on behalf of opticians, who said that in future glasses would cost a fortune.
To protect against the risk that costs could escalate in that way—if we were proved wrong, which we might be; I am content to wait to see what happens in practice — we have decided that those who require the more powerful lenses, because they have the poorest sight, should continue to have access to the general optical service to obtain their spectacles at cost price to the NHS. We are proposing that that should be extended to all who at present get a subsidy of £15 or more on their glasses.
Those people will be entitled to continue to get their glasses under the GOS for the foreseeable future. They will get them at whatever it costs the NHS—and we are talking about a tiny number of people. That is in line with what the Secretary of State first said on 20 December 1983, as reported in column 297 of Hansard of that date, and I put it in more explicit terms on Report. The point laboured by all three hon. Members who have spoken today is not on the face of the Bill. That is because it can, and will, be done by regulations under clause 28.

Mr. Pavitt: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has concentrated his argument on those with low visual acuity and needing a very powerful correction of a lens. The far wider area embraces not necessarily those with low visual acuity but people who, because they have a differing form of sight, at both long and short distances, require not necessarily a powerful lens but a lens suitable to their

disability. Therefore, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has covered one sector, he has not covered a far wider sector.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has great expertise in these matters and will be aware that it is a simplification to talk about those with very poor sight needing the most powerful glasses. We are both talking about possible expense; that is the aspect which is worrying people. That is why the definitions which we shall use of patients who will be able to benefit from the protection that we are suggesting are patients who at present receive a subsidy of £15 or more.
That means that, regardless of the exact visual disability which causes them to need more expensive glasses, so long as the difference between the charges that they pay at present and what their spectacles cost the NHS is £15 or more, they will continue to have access to the GOS and will go on being provided with spectacles and lenses at no more than the cost to the taxpayer of those spectacles.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister qualify that point? Is he saying that those who already have glasses for which they pay £15 will be all right, or is he saying that people who, by some calculation made in the DHSS when they go for their glasses in future, would have been paid £15 will be all right? In other words, does the new measure include only people who have glasses now or will it include people who will need glasses in the future? Whatever the answer, will there be some provision for keeping up with the rate of inflation?

4 pm

Mr. Clarke: I am talking about the class of people who would, at the moment, be eligible for a subsidy of £15 or more. That includes people whose eyesight deteriorates, so that they become eligible for that in future. We shall make arrangements to enable people who at the moment receive glasses that require a subsidy of that level and those who require such a subsidy on glasses in future, to take advantage of our concession. By definition, that will take account of inflation and when we come to draw up the regulations, the hon. Gentleman will see that we are aiming to ensure that those who require the most expensive lenses will still be able to get them at cost under the general optical service if they so require.

Mr. Kennedy: At the risk of playing devil's advocate, I point out that the Minister is not looking terribly convinced. Will he give one further clarification? He has said that this happy position will continue in the foreseeable future. What does he mean by that?

Mr. Clarke: Eventually, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we hope to go over to a system of cash grants. We do not believe that the Government and the NHS should be in the spectacle business, offering a set range of frames and providing appliances. The problem is that the low income of some people means that they are unable to afford glasses when they wish. The state should provide the right sum of money so that those people have the benefit of choice, as everybody else does, and with the right money can get the spectacles of their preference. We propose to move over to such a cash grant system as soon as we reasonably can.
For the time being, we shall keep the general optical service for children and those on low incomes and those


who, at the moment, get reduced charges. We propose, as a result of discussions on the Bill, to have this extra arrangement for those who, as things stand, will receive a subsidy of £15 or more. We are proposing that those people should have glasses, under the GOS, provided at the price that they cost the NHS, and we shall provide for that in the regulations.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) looks so perplexed. As, at the very last moment, he and his hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), will continue to chew away at this tiny point, about which they have affected to be so concerned, they will continue to have nitpicking answers until the details arrive, when the regulations that they are so eager to see are finally put before them.

Mr. Dobson: As the Minister knows, the Secretary of State gave a wide promise on Second Reading that he would offer all sorts of protection to all sorts of people. Nobody would suffer, everybody would be better off—roughly speaking, that is the general drift of what the Secretary of State said. We pressed for detail on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. If we had had a long Third Reading debate, no doubt we would have pressed for detail then, and the other place also asked for detail. Now the Minister comes galloping up and talks about an everybody-in-excess-of-£15 scheme and expects us to swallow it as if we were some trout that wanted to be caught. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), are having to take on board a new announcement. Is the Minister saying that somebody who was paying £14.99 in the past will have to pay the full price but somebody who was paying £15.1p will get his spectacles for nothing? That sounds an odd proposal.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is trying, at the last moment, to breathe life into some rather boring Lords' drafting amendments. He is getting carried away in his recollection of our previous debates. He says that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the broadest possible protection for everybody. My right hon. Friend said:
In the vast majority of cases I cannot believe that that subsidy is justified.
He was talking about the low level of average subsidy about which I was talking. He continued:
On the other hand, it has been argued that them are those with the very poorest sight who need complicated, more expensive lenses, and I am certainly prepared to consider the evidence on that to see whether they can have continued access to NHS glasses."—[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 297.]
I am not announcing this measure this afternoon for the first time. I am repeating announcements that I have made in earlier debates. My recollection is that I said the same thing on Report.
We decided that those who require the most expensive glasses will be protected by protecting those who receive a subsidy of more than £15—not those who pay £15, but those for whom the difference between what they pay and the cost to the NHS exceeds £15. Those are the people who need the most expensive glasses, and who will be offered some protection. The protection is that they will continue to have their glasses, if they wish, under the general optical service and we shall charge them the cost

to the taxpayer. They can have the glasses at cost. I have announced that before, and it appears to us to be adequate protection.
My announcement does not answer all those fanciful fears that have been raised to alarm people about the Bill. People are told that the price of the more complicated glasses will go soaring into the stratosphere. Those alarmist claims greatly exaggerate the extent of the subsidy that is given now, and ignore the fact that, with more competition, prices will come down, not go up, despite the arguments of some of the lobbyists.

Mr. Pavitt: There was not much comfort in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's threat of yet another means test. He is making an important point about regulations. Before they are finally drafted, will he have consultations with the National League of the Blind and Disabled and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf? Those bodies represent the people whom he is trying to protect. There are pertinent questions, to which those who are on the receiving end need to know the answers, about the judgments being exercised and the point on the scale at which it is decided that people need more powerful lenses, and therefore get a subsidy.

Mr. Clarke: We shall have consultations before we introduce the regulations. I shall follow closely the hon. Gentleman's argument about the points that may be made on behalf of the registered blind and the registered deaf. I am sure that we shall produce regulations that live up to what I have described.
I remind the House that on 2 May on Report, in columns 391–392, in exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and for Preston (Mr. Thorne), I set out our thinking about providing glasses through the GOS for those who need the most expensive lenses. I said that that was how we would honour the undertaking given by my hon. Friend on Second Reading.
I am glad that the amendment made in the other place on clause 3 is so readily accepted. I am sorry that hon Members find our commitment to the other things that we promised a little more difficult to follow, but it is there and it will emerge in due course in Me detail of the regulations
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) also raised a point about cataract patients and others who have had operations. He unfortunately has difficulties with his eyes and he will know that such people have to have: frequent changes of glasses. There is no danger of people facing enormous bills as a result of that, because the present arrangement in hospitals will continue unchanged by the Bill.

Mr. Pavitt: The present arrangements are marvellous.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says how marvellous they are. That being so, I cannot understand why he thinks that, as a result of the passing of the Bill, which will make no difference to them they will suddenly become unsatisfactory.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain what the present arrangements are; then I shall give him an opportunity to say what he thinks they ought to be. For anyone who has had, say, a cataract operation requiring frequent changes of glasses, it is possible sometimes for the hospital to lend glasses to the patient, who carries on


changing them until his eyes have settled down, and finally has the pair of glasses that he requires. But the more usual procedure is for the patient to pay for his first pair of glasses and then, as his eyes settle down, to get the next pair or pairs from the hospital free of charge. That is because the problem for such patients is their non-tolerance of the first glasses given to them. Either way, it is usually possible for a hospital to allow anyone who has had a cataract operation to have a pair of glasses and to pay for one pair only what he would expect to pay, like everyone else, under the general optical service. Those arrangements are not affected by the Bill.
Had there been legitimate fears of the kind that the hon. Gentleman expresses, we would have met them. We have met all reasonable objections throughout the Bill where they could be sustained. All these matters are vaguely related to clause 3, but not too closely. I am glad that one matter about which we remain unanimous is the drafting of clause 3 as the other place has now changed it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.

Schedule 3

FAMILY PRACTITIONER COMMITTEES

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 44, line 9, at end insert—
(3A) One member must be a person who—
(a) is registered in the register of qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors—
(i) as a nurse recorded in the register as having an additional qualification in district nursing;
(ii) as a midwife; or
(iii) as a health visitor; and
(b) has recent experience of providing services to patients (other than patients resident in hospital) in any such capacity."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We have been persuaded by their Lordships to put on the face of the Bill an undertaking given by the Government which always met with the approval of the Opposition in both Houses.
It has been argued strongly ever since we proposed our new arrangements for the independent status of family practitioner committees that one of the members of a new committee should be a nurse with community experience.
When we debated the Bill in this House, I kept giving undertakings on behalf of the Government that we would ensure that that was the case when we appointed the FPCs. I regret that, even in another place, there were unworthy suspicions that that undertaking might not be honoured —not by present Ministers but by our successors. In answer to that, someone succeeded in finding a way of putting the necessary provision on the face of the Bill. I do not recall that either House at any stage argued that there should not be a nurse with community experience included as a member of a family practitioner committee.
I suggest that at this stage we congratulate the other place on getting it put into the Bill and that we agree with the amendment.

Mr. Dobson: As the Minister said, this amendment meets an undertaking given by the Government. It appears

that, following certain salutary events in the other place, the Government now take more notice of expressions of cynicism by their Lordships about the Government's good intentions than they do of similar expressions in this House. A good deal of cynicism was expressed about whether even present Ministers—and certainly future ones—would honour undertakings given in the House that did not appear on the face of the Bill. Now that those expressions of cynical amusement have apparently been expressed in the other place as well, the Government have decided that they had better still the discontent by accepting what other people have been proposing all along should be included in the primary legislation.
We welcome the provision that each family practitioner committee will now include a nurse, a midwife or a health visitor who has some record of that type of work in the community. This may be my last opportunity to mention to the Minister my experience as a member of one of the formerly constituted family practitioner committees. Whenever we wanted to discuss any community nursing matter, the person who shuffled in was the gaffer of a group of nurses working in a hospital whose experience was not necessarily all that relevant to what we wanted to discuss.
We congratulate the other place on pressing more effectively than we did for an amendment along these lines.

Mr. Kennedy: The alliance welcome this amendment. However, when thanking their Lordships, we should not ignore the fact that it was not just the official Opposition who supported the change. My noble Friend Lord Kilmarnock was also extremely supportive of the idea that some kind of nursing representative should be a member of each FPC. I am sure that the Minister will be the first to acknowledge that.
We have been through the arguments about whether the greater independence of FPCs will allay the fears of the National Association of Health Authorities, but it is a pity that the Government did not take advantage of the opportunity presented to them to dilute the powers of the Secretary of State to control the composition of FPCs. We on the alliance Bench would argue that they would have been well advised to inject an element of direct election into the composition of the committees, in much the same way as we would like to see it on health authorities generally. It is a pity that that element is lacking, but perhaps the Minister will take advantage of a future Bill to introduce a provision along those lines.

Mr. Pavitt: I can understand the Minister's evident exasperation. On one of the few occasions when he is doing all the right things and we are praising him and thanking him, just like Oliver Twist we immediately ask for more. That is certainly true of this Lords amendment.
It is right that district nurses, health visitors and nurses with community experience should serve on FPCs. Their presence has been lacking for a long time. The problem now is to deliver. The additional qualifications required will present a problem in the coming months. The Government have cut £2 million from the funds available for the education and training of nurses. One of the scandals affecting district nurses and health visitors is that nursing is probably the only profession where a state registered nurse wishing to acquire additional qualifications has to pay her own fees and then, when she has


passed her examinations and qualified, gets no additional increment. She is paid precisely the same as she was before.
I am glad that the Government have seen the light and that the Lords have put this provision on the face of the Bill. However, the problem remains that, unless there is a change of policy about nursing education, in future the family practitioner committees will have a smaller and smaller pool of district nurses and health visitors on which to draw. They are very busy people. They do a full-time job. The additional responsibility of attending committee meetings will make further inroads on their time—for which they will get no additional remuneration.
I apologise to the Minister, because he has been extremely good to me today. Even when he is being good, I twist his arm to look at the problems which arise when he comes to implement the good that he has done. It is no good having a provision on the statute book if, when it comes to implementing it in two or three years, people are not available for a number of reasons, one of the most important being the £2 million cut in nursing education.

Mr Kenneth Clarke: It would be wise of me to resist being drawn into an argument about a new feature of our alleged cuts in the Health Service—a feature with which I am not instantly familar. We are trying to increase the emphasis on community nursing and community services in general throughout the NHS. That applies to the hospitals and to general practice. I am glad to say that there is a welcome and continuing increase in the number of nurses both being trained and engaged in community nursing. Without being drawn into a discussion of the hon. Gentleman's ideas about training problems, I can assure him that we will continue to give a high priority to increasing the quality of training in this field and the numbers of nurses who specialise in it.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that I must be feeling exasperated. That is not so. We have at last reached a stage in our discussion of the Bill when all four hon. Members who persist in discussing it—including myself —are in complete agreement about the amendments that have been made in another place and the policies which underlie them. Our proceedings will end on a happy note of unanimity.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 63, line 38, leave out "paragraphs 1(a) and" and insert
paragraph 1(a) and (c) and in paragraph

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is technical. It adds to the schedule of repeals in the Bill a further reference to a child dependency addition which is made redundant because of its abolition by clause 13 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 5.
The amendment repeals an entry—in paragraph 1(c) —relating to the child dependency addition to sickness benefit, in order to be consistent with the entry for unemployment benefit, in both cases for beneficiaries under pensionable age. The provisions of clause 13 and

schedule 5, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Bill have the effect —we discussed this point in Committee—of confining child dependency additions of sickness and unemployment benefit to beneficiaries who are over pensionable age.
The amendment simply corrects an error. In making the necessary consequential amendment, sickness benefit was inadvertently omitted. We are now suggesting an amendment to tidy up the Bill. We want the schedule to be consistent with the basic purpose of the main provisions of the Bill.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Is the effect of the amendment consistent with what is being done in the Bill with regard to such provisions? It is consistent in its mean-mindedness and in its disadvantageous result for poor families. The amendment completes the removal of child dependency addition from all the short-term benefits.
Not only between both sides of the House but among many of those who comment on social security for the Government or some other body, it has always been common ground that it would be desirable over a period to subsume those additions into child benefit. However, the Minister will not, I am sure, deny that when that was agreed on all sides, the impression was created that subsuming such additions into the benefit meant adding them to the benefit in a way which preserved a similar level of income and resources for poor families.
However, over the past few years the Government have significantly reduced the value of the additions, and can now therefore say that it is hardly worth while to retain them. They expect no one to notice or care when they remove them.
That is particularly disgraceful because we have never made sufficient allowance in any of our social security calculations—whether connected with child dependency additions, child benefit or anything else — for the maintenance of children. The levels of such benefits and additions were set a long time ago after a study which was not remotely scientific or, indeed, justifiable. A calculation was made of how much it would cost to support a man in prison and then, without any separate study being undertaken, it was assumed that it would naturally cost less to support a woman. The support for a woman was therefore set an arbitrary percentage—I believe about 60 per cent.—of that for a man. The level of support for a child was equally arbitrarily assessed at a certain percentage of the level required for a woman.
Anyone with experience of rearing children will know that they are not only frequently as costly to keep as adults but that, at some periods of their lives, they may cost even more. In the United States—conditions may be different there, but we may be heading in that direction—it has, recently been calculated that the cost of supporting a teenager amounts to 110 per cent. of the cost of supporting an adult. Yet, in dealing with the system which supports our poorest families, we persist in perpetuating the myth that such individuals cost less to support. That has never been the case.
Furthermore, such families are facing particular difficulties at present. Apart from changes such as this, and apart from the general flaw which runs through the whole system of calculating benefit, the Government have taken steps to reduce the amount of help available to such families towards the cost of rearing their children. I am thinking, for instance, of single payments for clothing. It has now been ruled that no payment will be made where


the ground of the request is merely that the child has grown out of his coat or shoes. That change would be difficult to defend at any time, and it adds to the burden on the families who are now losing this extra addition.
The level of the addition has now fallen to 15p, and that is the Government's justification for abolishing it. However, the Government's case is not helped by the fact that the rate of the addition was reduced between November 1980 and November 1983, at a time when child benefit itself was worth less than in 1979. It is clear that four or five years ago the Government had already discarded a principle on which, in theory, we are all agreed —that of subsuming these additions in child benefit and maintaining the value of the subsumed benefits.
It was through a change in the method of calculation that the Government managed to reduce the value of the addition to 15p. Depending on the statistics which one accepts, the value of the addition under the old method of calculation would now have been either £1·70 or £1·85. The Child Poverty Action Group suggests that the figure is £1·70, and the statistics section of the Library gives it as £1·85—a slightly unusual situation.
I can explain the reason for that decline in value. At an earlier stage, child benefit was added to the dependency addition, that total sum was increased by something like the percentage at which all benefits were increased, and then the new rate of child benefit was subtracted. The result was the new rate of dependency addition. On such a method of calculation, the figure would now have been £1·85 rather than 15p. For the families involved, that is a substantial sum. As the Minister has said, they are the families of the unemployed, living on short-term benefits, which are not set very high. Those benefits are calculated to support people for only a comparatively short period. For those individuals, £1·85 a week would make a substantial difference to their income.
4.30 pm
The Minister said in Committee that about £2 million is being saved in the social security budget by the proposal in the amendment. The abolition has been condemned by the Opposition and by the independent social security advisory committee which the Government set up, no doubt in the hope that it would give more favourable verdicts on their actions than they obtained from its predecessor. However, the committee said in 1981:
We support the Government's objective of including the short-term child dependency additions in child benefit but only in so far as the overall value of child support for people on contributory benefits is maintained in real terms. We consider that the method used by the Government for uprating the dependency additions does not achieve this … We are equally clear that the present method of achieving this is wrong. The objective is a sound one only if there is no loss of income in real terms of families dependent on contributory benefits.
That could hardly be more condemnatory and it is instructive to note that, despite those firm commitments, the Government have nevertheless persisted in this unfair, unjust and morally wrong method of calculating benefits.
Apart from the £2 million that the Government intend to save by this abolition, they saved £50 million a year between 1979 and 1981. It is wise to remember that, because the Government continually praise themselves for the changes that they have made, the increases that they have given and the improvements that they have achieved in bits of the benefit system, but they almost never add that

in almost every case, improvements have been paid for by another group among the poor or the slightly less poor. In no case has the money for improvements come from those who can best afford to pay it, and to whom the Government have given thousands of millions of pounds a year.
It is particularly sad that the changes are being made, because poverty is on the increase. Some of the most recent figures available — for 1981 — show that 2·8 million people were living on an income below supplementary benefit level—a 25 per cent. rise since 1979. Within that group, the number who were unemployed had risen threefold in the previous two years, the number who were in that group because of disability had risen by 67 per cent. and the number of single parents in that category had risen by 55 per cent. The cumulative effect of the changes was that 2·8 million families were living below the supplementary benefit level, which is calculated to support people only at subsistence level. In other words, they were living at below subsistence level.
In 1981, about 38 per cent. of those living below the poverty line were families with children; about 500,000 children were involved. The Government estimate that about 200,000 children will be affected by the saving in the amendment alone, although the Government told us in Committee that there will be little difference for those on supplementary benefit.
We ought to take another look at the history of the additions. It is a bad and boring habit of Ministers when making comparisons to look back not to the record of the previous Conservative Government, but at the achievements of the last Labour Government. Let us look at the record of that Labour Government in this context.
Before 1977, the Labour Government used the method of calculation that the present Government use. In that year, we faced a far worse economic crisis than this Government have yet managed to induce, and, unlike the present crisis, it was not of our making, but was caused by other people. Nevertheless, we decided that the existing method of calculation was insufficiently generous and that we were not giving enough help to poor families. Therefore, in 1977, we changed the method of calculating the additions and implemented the method which, if it were used today, would give an addition of £1·85 a week. One of the Conservative Government's first actions in 1979 was to reverse that beneficial change and to go back to the method of calculation that has left us with a child dependency addition of 15p a week.
I remind the Minister of those facts to save him the trouble of searching for comparisons with the Labour Government and because the proposed change is typical of the Government's attitude to the welfare state. Step by step, they are trying to reverse all the beneficial changes made not only by the last Labour Goverment, but by Labour Governments over the decades. The amendment is technical and consistent, but the policy with which it is consistent is to be deplored.

Mr. Newton: I shall resist the temptation to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the cause of the economic difficulties experienced by this country in 1976 and 1977. However, if she really believes that the difficulties were generated outside this country rather than by the policies of the then Government, I hope that she never serves in a future Government, because if she does we shall soon have the


IMF on our tails again. The first to suffer, as they were the first to suffer in 1976, would be many of the social security beneficiaries whose benefits would have to be cut to meet the requirements laid on us. That happened in 1976 as a result of the profligacy of the policies of the Labour Government.
Whatever else may be said about the hon. Lady's speech, she certainly showed astonishing ingenuity in stretching the remarks about a technical amendment so far. I understand the reasons for that and I am not criticising her. I am expressing genuine admiration at the fact that so many bricks can be made from so little straw, especially as the amendment does nothing more than tidy up a part of the Bill and does not make the change about which she spoke at such great length.
More seriously, the hon. Lady dwelt at length on the 15p addition, which relates only to sickness benefit and not to unemployment benefit, which is not touched by the amendment, because it was effectively dealt with in the original drafting of the Bill. Therefore, her estimates of the number of children affected must be inflated.
That 15p does not, of course, even go at present to most of those who are short-term sick. For most of them, sickness benefit has been replaced in the first eight weeks by statutory sick pay, and the question of the child dependency addition does not arise. Again, for those who are on sickness benefit for more than six months and who go on to invalidity benefit, the question does not arise because a higher child dependency addition continues in payment. On the uprating technique that the hon. Lady mentioned, the 15p would have disappeared last year rather than this year if we had had the power to abolish it then. In that sense, there has been a small and uncovenanted bonus for the beneficiaries concerned, in that that sum has been paid this year.
Although the hon. Lady recognised what I said in Committee, most of her remarks about the amount needed to keep a child were literally irrelevant to the debate because they were directed at the supplementary benefit scale rates for children and not at the child dependency additions paid either with short-term or long-term national insurance benefits. Indeed, one of the justifications for removing this residual 15p child dependency addition is that at the margin it has enabled us to ensure that we can protect—and, over the past five or six years, more than protect — the children's scale rates on supplementary benefit. Where the total income of the head of household or of the family is below the level of supplementary benefit due to sickness or unemployment, that family will get not 15p but the children's scale rates on supplementary benefit. The 15p literally does not make any difference, because it will be taken of their supplementary benefit. Perhaps I should say rather that the ultimate payment of supplementary benefit would be a net calculation if the 15p continued to be paid.
Thus, there should not be any misunderstanding. The poorest families, where the head of household is sick or unemployed, are not in any way affected by what the hon. Lady described as the proposal. Those on supplementary benefit are not at all touched by this claim. As the hon. Lady did not mention it, I should point out that the 1980 reform of the supplementary benefit system included a significant increase in the scale rates paid for many children. There was a real increase then, and it remains the case that the amount of benefit paid for significant groups of children on supplementary benefit is much higher, in

real terms, than when this Government came to power. That, indeed, was part of the trade-off for the change in single payments in relation to clothing. I believe that it was right to pay a higher level of basic benefit in respect of several age groups of children rather than to perpetuate a system under which, on a geographically very variable basis, some families received additional help for clothing rather than regular weekly payments of additional benefit, as are now made with the higher scale rates for some groups of children.

Mr. Dobson: rose——

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) apparently attach some importance to single payments of supplementary benefit—whether for clothing or other purposes—I shall gently point out that if they had their way, and the short-term child dependency additions were maintained at the 15p level or at the higher level that the hon. Lady apparently wants, some families at the margin would be taken off supplementary benefit altogether. Their incomes would rise above the assessed level for supplementary benefit purposes, and they would cease to be entitled to single payments of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister still stand by the view that it is good that families can no longer receive contributions towards reclothing children who have simply grown out of their clothes? How does he square that with the Prime Minister's famous speech in the United States of America in which she said that she wanted a society in which all children could grow tall but some could grow taller than others? Apparently that did not apply to those who needed such benefits.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are provisions in the supplementary benefit regulations for certain exceptional cases. But the general policy involved in the 1980 scheme of restricting some aspects—and it was only some—of the supplementary benefit single payment regulations in favour of an increase in the scale rates for two substantial age ranges of children was only sensible, is particularly since the way in which clothing single payments were paid varied very unfairly from one part of the country to another. It was notorious, for example, that in some parts of Scotland clothing payments were handed out very freely, while in other parts of the country they were much more difficult to obtain. Such differentiation in the treatment of payments is very difficult to defend. Thus the basic policy that we adopted in 1980 was sensible.

Mrs. Beckett: The Minister is right to say that it was recognised that the previous system was unfair as between one area and another. But those who wanted to remedy the situation did not imagine that the best way of doing it was effectively to abolish the payments altogether. The hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous when he says that there are still grounds for such payments to be made, since he knows perfectly well that the grounds are those of wholly exceptional wear and tear for some reason, such as health. Secondly, some grounds, such as the ground that children have grown out of their shoes, are specifically disallowed. The Minister may recall that I cited the example of a man who had had a health claim for such a payment on the ground of exceptional wear and tear. His


claim continued for several years, as he continued to have such a need, but eventually the DHSS officers ruled that, because it had existed for several years, his need was no longer exceptional for him. The Minister will probably agree that such a decision was a mistake, but it shows that the grounds are now more, and not less, difficult to establish.

Mr. Newton: There is no doubt that grants for clothing and shoes are now much more difficult to obtain. I am not denying that. That was one of the purposes of the change made in 1980. However, I cleave to the view that it was sensible to increase the regular amount paid to two substantial age ranges of children—the main subject of the hon. Lady's remarks — thus giving their families greater weekly payments of benefit and making it that little bit easier—although I do not say easy —for them to budget for regular replacements. It was, indeed, more sensible to do that than to maintain a system under which the benefit rates for those groups of children were lower and under which their parents had to ask for a separate assessment by a DHSS office every time that they needed clothes or shoes. That was not a particularly attractive proposition administratively and, even more importantly, it was not very attractive to the families involved to have to face a special means-tested assessment and to have to show that they had less than a certain amount of capital every time they wanted to replace little Johnny's shoes. In the long run, we should try to move away from that approach as much as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Iron and Steel

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move,
That the draft British Steel Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
The subject of this draft order is the statutory borrowing limit of the British Steel Corporation. This limit applies to all the corporation's borrowing, whether from the Government or from outside sources, as well as to payments of public dividend capital into the corporation.
The principal statute governing the BSC—the Iron and Steel Act 1982—provides that the limit shall be in the range of £2,500 million to £4,500 million and may be varied by order subject to an affirmative resolution of this House. The present limit stands at £3,000 million. It was set at that level in December 1982 by the British Steel Corporation (Reduction of Capital) Order that completed the capital restructuring of BSC which was begun in 1981. The order raises that limit by £500 million to £3,500 million. The House will recognise that, as with all these orders, it is permissive and does not commit the Government to providing that amount of money. Future funding will be governed by the external financing limits and the money will be subject to the Vote of the House through the Estimates in the normal way.
Hon. Members will recall that, when the present limit was set in December 1982, BSC's recovery from the steel strike of 1980 had also been hit by the introduction of protectionist measures in the United States. There had also been a sharp downturn in world markets for steel and, consequently, there had been a collapse of steel prices in Europe. Shortly after the House discussed the previous borrowing powers order at the end of 1982, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who was then Secretary of State for Industry, made a statement to the House on BSC's strategy in the light of those events. He reported that progress to break even would be slower than had been expected and that the EFLs that were set for 1982–83 and for 1983–84 were no longer achievable. In the same statement, my right hon. Friend announced the Government's decision that BSC should draw up its next corporate plan on the basis of steelmaking continuing at all five integrated sites, with the objective of breaking even in 1984–85.
Although the corporation would be able to take management action to cut costs to maintain efficient operations and to move steadily towards the objective of viability, any closure of one of the five main integrated steelworks would have to be considered jointly with the Government. That remains the case. Following my right hon. Friend's statement, the EFL for 1982–83 was increased to £575 million and a new limit of £325 million was set for 1983–84. In the event, BSC's results for 1982–83 reflected the severe difficulties that I have described and the loss before exceptional items was £386 million—up £47 million on the previous year. I have described what happened in 1982–83 in some detail simply to remind the House where we have come from.
I am pleased to say that BSC made substantial progress in 1983–84 in recovering from the setbacks that I have outlined. I should like to refer to some of the events that are described in detail in the BSC's report and accounts,


which were laid before Parliament earlier this month. One of the BSC's major objectives is to improve the cost structure of its businesses to bring them up to the best European standards. Since the end of 1982, productivity has risen steadily. The number of man hours needed to make one tonne of liquid steel fell to 7·1 in 1983–84, as compared with 9·3 in the previous year. In the quarter ended March 1984, BSC's production of crude steel rose to an annual rate of 271 tonnes per man year — 12 tonnes per man year better than in Germany and 46 tonnes per man year better than in France.
During 1983, performance records were broken at many BSC works. For example, weekly production records for continuous casting were achieved during September and October at Scunthorpe and Stocksbridge, and in August the Port Talbot slab caster recorded the highest United Kingdom weekly output for a single concast machine. There have been some considerable improvements and achievements. Overall production of liquid steel totalled 13·4 million tonnes—an increase of 1·7 million tonnes on the previous year. Energy usage per tonne of steel fell and the proportion of steel produced by the continuous casting process increased from 38 per cent. to 46 per cent.
Of course, improvements in manufacturing performance cannot be and are not the whole story. It is also necessary to increase the market share. During 1983–84, BSC maintained its share of a growing home market and increased its exports by 16 per cent. against an increase in the world market of only 3 per cent. I know that BSC has made considerable progress on customer satisfaction in terms of delivery and quality. Some hon. Members will recall the director of the National Association of Steel Stockholders paying tribute to the improved quality of BSC's products when he appeared before the Select Committee.
In financial terms, BSC's loss, excluding exceptional items, fell in 1983–84 to £174 million as compared with £383 million in the previous year. The external financing requirement fell from £569 million to £318 million. The number of employees fell during the year by 10,000. That is a lot but I must stress that it was the smallest reduction for several years and that, of those 10,000, about 2,000 were transferred to new companies that were set up or disposed of as part of the privatisation policy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that, taken as a whole, 1983–84 was a year of achievement for the BSC. I pay tribute to the chairman, the board, the management and, of course, the work force on their efforts to achieve these satisfactory results.
It would be wrong, however, to suggest that the results were achieved without problems, or without problems having to be overcome. The performance for the year conceals a contrast between the two halves of the year in terms of operating conditions. In the first half, there was a strong trading position and the BSC was ahead of forecasts in most respects. However, in the summer and autumn of 1983, prices became much weaker throughout Europe and trading conditions in the second half of the year were much more difficult. For that reason, action was taken by the European Community at the end of last year to restore market stability through a reinforcement of the anti-crisis measures. That helped to stabilise matters in the early part of 1984. I think that most people agree that that has resulted in price improvements in the current financial year. The anti-crisis measures, which include stricter

output quotas, minimum prices for certain products and monitoring of intra-Community trade flows, are designed to provide a breathing space to facilitate the restructuring of the industry and to enable state aids for steel to be phased out by the end of 1985 — a Community requirement.
The Government have always been a firm supporter of those measures and our industry has been in the forefront in implementing the painful but necessary restructuring. It is pleasing that there is now evidence that other countries are matching our efforts. Commissioner Andriessen announced in May that he expects capacity reductions in the Community to reach about 30 million tonnes between 1980 and 1985.
In those circumstances, it is all the more important that the BSC should be able to compete effectively in Europe and the world and that the position reached through the commitment of funds in the past and the tremendous restructuring which has taken place should not be thrown away.
In view of the achievements of the BSC work force, it seems to me all the sadder and all the more perverse that the competitive position which has been reached should be threatened by the miners' strike. The attempts which have been made to prevent the steel industry from carrying on its business risk, as everyone must know, the permanent loss of markets which would endanger the future of the whole industry. It cannot be right to say that the BSC can survive the interruption of steel production. Everyone must know that foreign companies will snap up the market at the first opportunity. There is no need to dwell any longer on that aspect. The steel workers who have experienced a painful but necessary contraction of their industry have by their actions recognised the realities.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to anticipate difficulties in the steel industry, but does the Minister accept that, early in the miners' dispute, an agreement was made between those who work in the steel and the coal industries to ensure that Scunthorpe received the amount of coal that it needed and that men from pits in my constituency loaded and sent that coal? Does not hindsight suggest that it would have been better for the same approach to be adopted with coke? Is it not the case that, had adequate warning of the need for coke been given, the scenes at Orgreave would not have occurred?

Mr. Lamont: That is not a fair representation. It would not be right for this debate to turn into a great debate on the miners' dispute. I shall not pursue the hon. Gentleman down that road.
It is normal in debates on nationalised industries' borrowing powers to outline the planning over the period covered by the new powers. At present, however, planning is impeded by the uncertainty of the strike. The existing borrowing limit of £3 billion has been in place for about 18 months, which is very much as was expected when the previous order was debated at the end of 1982. At the end of March 1984, BSC's actual and potential borrowings against the limit stood at £2,866 million. The order seeks an increase to £3,500 million. We have set a target for the corporation of breaking even before interest in 1984–85 and an EFL for this year of £273 million. In the period after that, the BSC will seek to achieve enduring profitability and freedom from state aids from 1986 onwards, as required by the EEC. The corporation's assessment is that


the business will require external financing during 1985–86 of a similiar magnitude to 1984–85. Other things being equal, therefore, we might expect the new powers to last for about two years from now.
The planning process has, however, been interrupted by the strike. The BSC chairman stated in his recent report that the corporation had come close to breaking even, before interest, at the beginning of the current financial year. We must hope that the impact of the miners' strike will not be too adverse on the corporation. Undoubtedly, that strike has had an effect, although these are early days and it is too early to say precisely what that effect is likely to be.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the Minister recollect that yesterday, on "The World at One", the Secretary of State for Energy stated that, despite the miners' strike, there had been an increase in steel production?

Mr. Lamont: It is true that overall steel production has stayed at remarkably high levels, and getting coal, coke and ore supplies through is a tremendous achievement. Production is down at some plants, but it has risen at others. The remarkable achievement has not been made without considerable effort. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that point, but it is no thanks to his hon. Friends that that production level has been achieved. I was thinking that it was perhaps not a good thing to turn this debate into a discussion on the miners' strike—that is still my inclination—but I am willing to do so, if the hon. Gentleman wishes it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Despite what the Minister is willing to do, the Chair will ensure that hon. Members keep to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Lamont: I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that relevance is a far better route to pursue. I am bound, however, to make the point that we cannot debate the finances of BSC without observing that the miners' strike could have a serious effect on the corporation's finances, its markets and the future of individual plants.
Decisions on the BSC's planning will need to wait until the position becomes clearer. It is already obvious that, under any foreseeable circumstances, the cash needs during the current year and the next financial year will require the commitment of the great bulk of sums provided for in this order. The House will, of course, be kept informed as external financing limits are set for each year.
We have made it clear that we wish the corporation's activities to be returned to the private sector. I should like to comment on the rather synthetic expressions of surprise made by some hon. Members when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it clear in answer to a recent parliamentary question that our aim is that BSC should earn profits and pay dividends on its capital and should eventually be returned to the private sector. It cannot be any surprise to the House to note that that is the Government's objective. We have consistently made it clear that we see no reason why the Government should be involved in steel production through ownership of the major part of the industry, and we see no reason for this industry to continue to depend on funding from the taxpayer.
Priority must necessarily be given to the reduction of losses, not just to reduce the burden on the taxpayer but because viability and profitability are essential if private sector finance is to be attracted and industry is thus to have a long-term future. However, the Government and the corporation have both taken the view that, while striving to turn around the corporation's overall performance, immediate attention should be given, first, to privatisation in the area where BSC's activities are in direct competition with the private sector and, secondly, to those activities that are not part of the corporation's mainstream business. We are, however, still some way from the point at which bulk steelmaking can be privatised. The timing of the elimination of subsidies depends on developments in the market, the successful continuation of the anti-crisis measures in Europe and continued improvements in BSC's performance. In the so-called "overlap- area, we have been concerned that the conditions of competition between the public and private sectors should be, and be seen to be, completely fair. For that reason, we have sought where possible to achieve the outright sale of the BSC's activities or, where that is not immediately possible — for example, because of a need for large-scale rationalisation — to set up Phoenix-type joint ventures as a halfway stage. In 1983–84 a number of joint ventures of that kind were set up, including two mergers between BSC and Tube Investments for seamless tubes. Those disposals have already helped to reduce the proportion of the corporation's activities in the overlap area.
Since 1980, the total book value of assets disposed of is £274 million, which is 13 per cent. of the total book value of BSC's assets in 1980. Land and property sales have realised about £61 million. Twelve companies have been set up, some of which have subsequently been privatised. They include the so-called Phoenix II joint venture in engineering steels which would halve the remaining overlap area. I know that certain hon. Members are interested in this point—proposals have been put to the Government on this venture and negotiations are taking place.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the proposals in the order take account of the Phoenix II proposals. Is the proposed new limit of £3,500 million based on an assumption that British Steel's special steels group will have been privatised during the period covered by the order? Clearly that factor must affect the borrowing requirement.

Mr. Lamont: The corporation is not the only source of finance for Phoenix II, but it might be a contributor to a joint venture. Part of that is provided for in the extension of the borrowing limit, but it depends upon precisely when the investment takes place because, as I have said, we expect the limit to last for some two years. It includes some contribution towards a Phoenix II venture.

Mr. Crowther: The Minister is not answering the question. If the Phoenix II proposals have not gone through during the period intended to be covered by the order, any investment in the special steels group must be covered by BSC's own borrowing powers. If, however, special steels have been privatised by then, future investment will be covered from outside BSC's borrowing powers. I am anxious to know which assumption has been made in arriving at this figure.

Mr. Lamont: The borrowing power is consistent with both assumptions. There could be a contribution from BSC towards a proposed joint venture, and there could be investment by BSC in its own engineering steels business. Either way, that would be consistent with the powers being taken under the order.
The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is open to us to decide when we must come back to the House for more money. Under the terms of the order, we expect that there will be a contribution towards Phoenix II. It is not open to me now to say precisely what we expect that will be or when it will be made. In addition to Phoenix II, there are several orders——

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Before the Minister leaves Phoenix II, can he say a further word about the proposals to which he referred? He will be aware that the annual report which he has mentioned contains a statement that a detailed joint plan covering Phoenix II has been submitted to the Government. The Minister will be aware that some of my hon. Friends and I discussed Phoenix II across the Floor of the House with him as long ago as 1982. The talks that gave rise to the proposals which are now in the Government's hands have been going on for four years. Can he say what has gone badly wrong?

Mr. Lamont: A detailed proposition has been put to the Government only recently. There have been many discussions about possible propositions and different combinations of plants, but we now have a specific proposal and a specific request. We are now looking at them. I am sorry that it is not a satisfactory position for the House. We want to reach a decision on that as quickly as possible. I well understand the anxiety that the matter causes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We shall attempt to deal with it as quickly as possible.
Several other disposals or joint ventures are in prospect. There are two sides to privatisation. It also requires a commitment from the private sector—steel or non-steel —to strengthen its involvement in the industry. BSC's assets will be sold only at a realistic assessment of their value to a viable business.
Where immediate disposal is not in view, we are encouraging the corporation to set up further limited liability companies. We have stressed that these must be genuinely at arm's length from the corporation. That will improve the transparency of its separate businesses and be a first stage towards privatisation. That is a point that the private sector has put to me, again and again, as one to which it attaches importance, because it demonstrates transparency and fairness of competition.
Government assistance to the corporation has been massive over a number of years. We look forward to the time when such support will no longer be necessary. The management and the work force have contributed wholeheartedly to the return of the business to viability. The order will enable further funds to be provided to enable the process to continue over the next two years. The immediate future is, as I have said, regrettably unclear because of factors to which I have referred. However, the House will be kept informed as decisions are taken and the provision of finance to BSC will be subject to the normal controls. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The order is essentially about the corporation's borrowing powers

under the Iron and Steel Act 1982. The Opposition welcome and support the proposal to increase those borrowing powers from £3,000 million to £3,500 million.
I was glad to hear from the Minister of the progress that has been made by the corporation in recent years. He gave splendid figures of its overall output and efficiency with regard to the tonnage produced compared with the number of people now employed. The corporation is now, of course, slimmed down.
There was one worrying aspect of the Minister's speech. I am talking, of course, about the Minister's reference to the Government's privatisation proposals. They will create a new scare and further uneasiness throughout the corporation. We must remember that it was originally taken into public ownership to provide the essential investment in the steel industry that had been denied it for many years by its former private owners. His remarks will cause bitter resentment throughout the industry. They might herald a new period of instability and uncertainty, which could do untold harm to its future.
Those of us who have been interested in the industry for a long time believe that an efficient steel industry is vital for an industrial nation such as Great Britain. We cannot afford to rely upon imported supplies of steel. We believe that a sizeable and efficient steel industry is vital for this country's defence. It could be justified on that ground alone. Without an independent steel industry we would be at the mercy of overseas suppliers with all that that can mean for pricing policies and delivery dates.
Our steel industry's production capacity has been cut to the bone. I have put forward that view in the House many times. I have spoken in most of the steel debates over the years. I have a constituency interest in that the integrated plant of Llanwern and other smaller works are in my constituency. When we debate the corporation's borrowing powers and this proposal to increase them, I can ask the Minister, with a twinkle in my eye, whether he would please bear in mind Llanwern and its proposal for a new concast plant. I believe that its record of output and overall efficiency in recent years justifies such an investment.
The Minister has said that we are in the midst of a serious mining dispute. I am aware that that has posed many problems for the steel Industry. In some ways, it is disrupting the industry. The longer the dispute goes on, the more serious the situation becomes. For many reasons, the sooner the mining dispute is concluded the better. The politics of confrontation should cease. What we require now is statesmanship, because there would seem to be little between the two sides.
In recent weeks and months there have been proposals concerning the European Coal and Steel Community. Can the Minister say, in relation to recent agreements, what will be the future position of the United Kingdom steel industry? What is happening about new investment? I am sure that many of my hon. Friends representing steel constituencies throughout the country are anxious about the future of their plants, believing that we need new investment in them to keep up with new technology, and to retain our competitive position in the markets of the world.
Recently, there has been comment in the media about the quota system. Can the Minister tell us how the BSC will fare under the new system? Some of us recall what happened when there was a mass attack on our own domestic steel industry. We recall that while our industry


was being cut to ribbons, with all the social problems involved, Italy was increasing its overall productive capacity.
As I said earlier, I speak with a certain local —indeed, a Welsh — interest. Unfortunately, Wales has always had a record as an area of high unemployment. Since 1977 it has lost no fewer than 40,000 steel jobs. I vividly recall what happened at Shotton, at Ebbw Vale, at Llanwern, at East Moors and at Port Talbot. Thousands of jobs were lost, causing problems for many families and many communities. Many of my colleagues could tell a similar story from their own areas, particularly in Scotland and in the north of England.
I repeat that our steel industry has been cut to the bone. We need our five integrated steel plants. From time to time, the media refer to the alleged rivalry between Ravenscraig and Llanwern. I say clearly and unequivocally that it is non-existent; there is no such rivalry. We need all five plants. I believe that one day, perhaps even under this Government, we shall have a measure of economic expansion — a so-called upturn in the economy. In that sense, I support the order.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: The present position in my constituency reflects to a certain extent what has happened to the steel industry in recent years. In the good days we were making a great deal of steel in Scunthorpe, with three major steelworks employing about 26,000 men. Today, we have one major integrated plant there, employing 6,800 men. Nevertheless, prior to the coal miners' strike, the Scunthorpe steelworks was achieving new production records. The weekly production was 61,000 tonnes at its height. That is in a context of overcapacity in steel production, not only in the United Kingdom or in Europe but in the United States and on a world wide basis. Europe is awash with steel. The BSC exports about £700 million worth of steel—roughly 30 per cent. of its product.
The position in which the BSC finds itself as a result of the coal mining dispute is, to say the least, serious. Prior to the dispute, the BSC had managed to sustain three price rises. The market had borne those three price rises since about January. Our market share at home was increasing by about 4 per cent. per annum, although I am bound to point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is not on the capital side. When production increases on the capital side BSC's position will become that much stronger. Nevertheless, production in the home market was increasing by about 4 per cent., and the BSC had become one of the most competitive, if not the most competitive, steel producers in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the figures. In the United Kingdom, tonnes per man-year in the year ending March 1984 were 271, compared with 176 in 1982. That was higher than the figures for West Germany and France— a remarkable turn-round. The quality of the product that the BSC is producing is infinitely superior to what has been produced in recent years. In addition, the BSC has become more reliable in its production targeting and in meeting its orders.
The present position is, of course, serious, because the BSC has, in effect, stopped exporting the amount of steel that it was exporting prior to the coal strike. I do not know

what the present figures are. The Minister has not given them and I do not think there has been any public announcement about them, although there is some speculation.
The coal miners' strike must be causing losses to the BSC. I do not know what they are running at. In some journals, the losses are said to be virtally nil; in others they are said to be about £5 million per week. I do not wish to turn the debate on the order into a debate on the coal mining dispute, but I do not think that we can look at the financing of the BSC without taking that dispute into account. If the NUM's policy was successful, and production ceased at Ravenscraig and Scunthorpe, our market share would be lost substantially in Europe and in the United Kingdom.
The lesson of the 1980 strike was that, however hard we try to prevent imports, it cannot be done. BSC has been driving out imported steel and has recaptured more of the market. We have more of the home market than do any of the major European steel producers. The loss of the European markets and the home markets would be a double tragedy for BSC.
The attempt by the leadership of the NUM to put the steel industry out of business has been pursued with unacceptable vigour. I hope that the dispute will be ended speedily. Nevertheless, it is essential that supplies of coal, coke and iron ore continue to enter the steelworks in sufficient quantities to maintain their production. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will be so.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. Future state aid to BSC depends upon the Commission's approval of the BSC's new corporate plan, which will produce viability by the end of 1985. Can the Minister tell us what the corporate plan provides—I believe that he has had the plan on his desk for some time — and whether the need to bring capacity and demand into balance will ensure that our five major integrated plants can be retained?
Can the Minister tell us whether the quota arrangements and agreements for capacity restrictions are being observed by the Italians, the Germans and the French? There was clear reluctance by the Governments of Italy, Germany and France to come up with the requisite capacity reductions. Have they realised that they cannot continue to fund the massive losses in their steel industries? Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done to ensure that those countries are observing the Commission's directives on capacity reductions?
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) was a member, made several recommendations in its report that have implications for BSC's funding. Recommendation 3 is that
now is not the time to close a strip mill".
Can the Minister enlarge upon that?
The strategy of rationalisation, or cutbacks, in European steel-producing capacity has gone hand in hand with social policy. Member states do all that they can to ensure new investment in steel closure areas. I should remind the Minister that the Government are considering the regional aid map. I ask him to bear in mind the special position of steel closure areas in this country.
It is apparent that BSC — its work force and management and the trade union—have turned round BSC from an appalling loss-maker to a position in which it approaches its target of viability. However, viability is


not enough. If adequate capital investment is to take place there must be profitability. BSC has turned into one of the most productive steel makers in Europe. All those concerned should be congratulated on their effort.
It is vital that the attempt by the NUM leadership to bring the steel industry to a halt should be defeated. If it were successful, the consequences for the 71,000 men working for BSC would be more hazardous in many ways than for those who are presently engaged in the coal mining industry. Steel would be affected by rationalisation in the mining industry. I should like, therefore, to support the order.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I was most surprised that Conservative Members brought the coal industry dispute into the debate. If the Government had pursued expansionist economic policies in the past five years, not only would the steel industry be far more productive, but we should be using every tonne of coal that we could get. Arguments about pit closures would be largely academic. Because of the Government's contraction of the economy, we have a dispute in the coal industry. Therefore, I was surprised that the hon. Gentlemen brought the dispute into our debate.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) referred to the sad story of the reduction in the work force at Scunthorpe. That merely reflects what has happened throughout the steel industry. It is, I agree, a very sad story. Nothing is more tragic than the way in which our steel industry has been run down in recent years. It is heart-breaking to pass through the area between Rotherham and Sheffield, and to see works that have closed and are derelict. Once, it was the most intensive centre of operations in steel making and heavy engineering in the whole of Europe, but the industry has been moving in that direction for some years, under the Government's leadership.
I thought that the Minister was getting a little mixed up after he kindly allowed me to interrupt his speech to ask him whether the Phoenix II proposals were taken into account in fixing the £3·5 billion in the order. The fact is that that is affected by whether privatisation has taken place. A long time ago, when the then Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), invited several hon. Members to discuss what became known as the Phoenix II scheme—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) was there — the right hon. Gentleman explained that that scheme had to be put outside the public sector so that its borrowing would not be reflected in the public sector borrowing requirement. If the Phoenix II proposal goes ahead and the special steels group of British Steel Corporation is passed into the private sector, any borrowing by that company from then on will not be within the £3·5 billion limit proposed in the order. Therefore, that matter is relevant and any further borrowings will be in the private sector, not the public sector. I wanted to make that point clear.
When the chairman, Mr. Haslam, gave evidence to the Select Committee on 18 January, he said:
At present we have a number of these projects in hand".
By "these projects", he meant the Phoenix schemes. He stated further:
Our EFL for the coming year, which is £275 million, will not cover all the larger ventures in hand. In our discussions with

government on our EFL we naturally recognised for example that if we go ahead with Phoenix II, which is a joint company with GKN, then an additional contribution from government would be necessary.
I think that the chairman got it wrong too, if what the former Secretary of State said was right. It is true that more Government money will be necessary. It may be Industry Act money, but it will not be under the BSC borrowing powers.
I am extremely worried—as worried as everyone in the industry is — about what is happening about the Phoenix II proposals. I should remind the House what Phoenix II now entails compared with more than four years ago, when it was first considered. At that time it was intended to merge the BSC special steels group with several private sector plants, including Duport's works in south Wales and the west midlands, the Round Oak works in the west midlands, Hadfield's in Sheffield and the GKN Brymbo works in north Wales. However, because of the terrible events in the steel industry—so much has closed down—only GKN Brymbo is left in the private sector to be merged with the BSC special steels group.
According to written answers that I have received, about 82 per cent. of the productive capacity of the proposed new private sector company will come from the public sector. Less than 20 per cent. will be provided by GKN, yet BSC will not be permitted to own more than 50 per cent. of the shares in the new company. Therefore, the taxpayers' assets will be handed over to a private sector company and our representatives, in the form of BSC, the only public corporation involved, will have no more—probably less—than half the shares in the company. That is a serious matter for the taxpayer. It cannot be in taxpayers' interests to pass over to the private sector what is potentially the most profitable part of the whole of BSC' s operation.
It is remarkable that, when the Minister of State gave evidence to the Select Committee on 8 February, he omitted to mention that proposals jointly agreed by BSC and GKN on Phoenix II had arrived in his Department on 19 December. He was extensively questioned on the matter, but at no stage did he tell the Committee, "We have received proposals from the two organisations involved." In fact, far from saying that he had received the proposals, he went out of his way to imply that the Department had not received them. I asked him whether there was an estimate of the new company's productive capacity and whether any capacity closures would be involved. The Minister said that his Department did not have an estimate. I asked him how much Government money would be put into the new private sector company, and he said:
no proposition for the money has been put forward.
It was only as a result of written answers and correspondence from the Under-Secretary that I discovered that all that information and all those proposals had been in the Minister of State's Department since 19 December, including proposals for further reductions in capacity which, according to the Under-Secretary, are commercially confidential and including proposals for more Government money, although no precise figure was yet put on it. I do not intend to pursue that point further in the Chamber because it might be pursued elsewhere. I am rather disturbed that the Minister of State felt it proper to try to keep that information from the Select Committee


when we were carrying out an inquiry into the future of BSC. No doubt he had good reasons, but I cannot understand what they are.
If the company is established under the Phoenix II project, it will have a monopoly within the United Kingdom in the production of a wide range of engineering steels. The Select Committee has expressed grave concern on that matter. We said that many customers will not be happy about having only one source for their steel. People might be driven to going overseas and importing steel because they do not want to be tied to a single supplier in the United Kingdom. To their credit, the Government are looking into that issue. I look forward to seeing the results of their inquiry. The result of my inquiries is that many existing customers of the special steels industry, both in the public sector and private sector, are unhappy about the idea of having only a single source in the United Kingdom.
Another effect on customers should be taken seriously into account. Several people have expressed concern to me about it. GKN is the other partner with BSC in the venture. That is what creates the problem. GKN is not only a steel maker but a steel user. It has massive engineering interests. Some of its competitors in engineering suspect that GKN, having established itself as a major partner in a new company holding a monopoly in the production of these steels, will be able to use its influence to provide for itself an advantage in prices that will not be available to its competitors in the engineering world that have to go to the same company to buy their steel. The Minister of State should be concerned about that matter. After all, we have been assured time after time that competition is one of the important features of the Government's policy. They believe in competition to provide efficiency in industry, and so on. In this case, they are about to destroy competition, apparently greatly to the disadvantage of many private sector engineering companies.
The Select Committee refers to the effect of Phoenix II on the taxpayer in paragraph 35 of its report, which expresses concern about the hiving off of a potentially valuable and profitable part of BSC:
We are concerned that such an approach will lead to privatisation of the more profitable parts of BSC only to leave a loss-making rump in the public sector.
The Minister of State must deal with that point when he winds up the debate. If it is Government policy to privatise those parts of any public corporation that can make a profit —for instance, the Jaguar cars part of BL, perhaps the warship-building operations of British Shipbuilders and certainly the special steels section of BSC—how can it be for the benefit of the taxpayer to be left with the non-profitable parts of the industries concerned? The Government must give a full explanation of how it can possibly be in the national or public interest to take away the parts of publicly owned industry most likely to bring a return on the money that taxpayers have invested. As taxpayers, we are entitled to expect a return on our capital. If the operation involved is hived off to the private sector as soon as such a return becomes available, how can the taxpayer get something back for what he has put into those industries?

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: In return for the profit-making asset, the taxpayer receives a capital sum which reflects the potential future profitability of that asset. The loss-making parts of the undertaking remain in

the public sector in any case. The capital sum received by the taxpayer can then be invested in other areas such as the National Health Service, Government bonds, the Post Office or building societies to yield a rate of return.

Mr. Crowther: With respect, if the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. The history of privatisation by the Government shows that, on the contrary, valuable public assets have been sold off at bargain basement prices.

Mr. Hawkins: That is a different point.

Mr. Crowther: It strikes me as being very much the same point. Moreover, with Phoenix II it is not even a question of selling but of giving away. It has been made clear both in the chairman's evidence to the Select Committee and somewhat grudgingly in parliamentary answers to me that the taxpayer will be giving the so-called purchaser extra money to take away potentially the most profitable section of the industry. That is utterly unacceptable. It is not as though the Government are asking the City, as they sometimes do, how much they can get for the asset. On the contrary, they go along to GKN — the only company left since Duport, Tube Investments and Hadfield's have been knocked out—and ask what it is prepared to pay.
At least, that seems to be the intention if we are to believe the words of the then Secretary of State—there have been quite a number of them—at the last general election. In a letter to the British Independent Steel Producers Association, the then Secretary of State said that the intention was to see what the private sector could afford. Apparently, it is no longer a matter of what things are worth but merely of what the private sector can afford. When there is only one potential buyer, that is scarcely a reasonable way to determine the true market value.
In my view, there is no doubt at all that the taxpayer is to be sold down the river completely. There is also a great danger to the private sector engineering companies which will have to buy their steel from a United Kingdom monopoly in which one of their competitors holds a substantial part of the equity. These questions are causing great concern. I hope that the Minister can produce some good answers today.

Mr. Michael Brown: I have had the privilege of attending every steel debate in the House since 1979, but this is the first in which there has been a note of such considerable optimism. I no longer represent a steelworks as my constituency now ends about a mile from the great Appleby Frodingham steelworks, which I had the privilege to represent from 1979 to 1983, but times have certainly changed since the dark days of 1979 and 1980 when the Opposition, week after week, led by the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow spokesman, called from crowded Benches for debates about the steel industry. Where is the Leader of the Opposition now? Where is the Shadow spokesman? Where are all the Opposition Members? They are not here because they no longer need to worry about the steel industry.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may first develop the point.
I make no criticism of Opposition Members for not being present today because there is no need for them to be here. The steel industry no longer faces the crisis that it faced in 1979 and 1980. In those days, the Opposition were right constantly to demand debates, to participate in those debates and to argue about the kind of steel industry that we should have in the future. It was a testing time for me, too, because I had to decide on my own stance, bearing in mind not only my constituency interest but my loyalty to my party.

Mr. Ewing: I am anxious that the hon. Gentleman should not continue much longer without apologising for drawing attention, in his usual unfair way, to the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) as soon as my right hon. Friend had left the Chamber. As my right hon. Friend had been present throughout the earlier part of the debate, the hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to withdraw his remark. Moreover, before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away by his own enthusiasm, he should remember that we have plenty of crises to deal with—the economic crisis and the crisis in the coal industry, to mention but two. We are never short of a crisis or two with the present Government in power. Whether it be in the steel industry, the coal industry or elsewhere, there will always be a crisis so long as they remain in power.

Mr. Brown: I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman's last comment, but I certainly withdraw any unfairness that my remarks may have implied. They were certainly not intended in that vein. I went on to make it clear that there was no need to worry about the steel industry. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are probably more important matters now requiring attention. I certainly intended no criticism, but if any was implied I certainly withdraw it. We have come a long way since 1979 and 1980.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) made a significant statement in his comprehensive speech when he said that the taxpayer had a right to a return on his investment. For one moment I thought that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the former Secretary of State, speaking. Any of my hon. Friends could have said that. How right the hon. Member for Rotherham was. That is what this Government have tried to ensure for five years. From 1979 the Government's intention has been to say as loudly and as clearly as the hon. Member for Rotherham that the taxpayer has a right to a return on his investment. At one time nearly £1 billion a year was being lost in the steel industry.

Mr. Crowther: If that is so, why does the hon. Gentleman support giving away public assets just when they are about to give the taxpayer a return on investment?

Mr. Brown: The taxpayer can be saved the sums that he used to have to spend to keep going an industry which was inefficient and producing steel for the wrong customers, or for customers who were not there. He can be saved the £869 million that he had to spend in 1982–83 and throughout the mid and late-1970s. Is it not right that the taxpayer should now receive a return on his investment because people are able to invest voluntarily in the steel industry?
I want to contrast what happens today with what happened in 1979–80. It is important and puts in context

the achievement by the Minister of State and his colleagues in the order. I recall the massive sums that had to be voted through to sustain the steel industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, that is not all that this Government are about. They have ensured that the industry can survive and thrive. It is not enough to come to the House every year, or every two years, with a borrowing powers order. It is not enough to announce each year the external financing limits, although tremendous achievements are involved in that.
According to this year's report, the external financing limit is £3 million below the limit of £321 million set last year. That represents the smallest subsidy for nine years for the steel industry. My hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged that 10,000 people went out of the industry in the last year, but that was the lowest number for many years.
We now have a steel industry capable of surviving and competing against the most difficult competition from Japan and Germany. According to this year's annual report, output is up to 271 tonnes per man-year, compared with 259 tonnes per man-year in Germany and 225 tonnes per man-year in France.
Criticism was heaped upon me, Mr. MacGregor and my right hon. Friend when in 1980–81 a decision was made that had a tremendous impact on the constituency now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet). I was challenged by the Opposition to go into the Opposition Lobby to save the Normandy park steelworks and oppose the redundancies involved. I decided that my duty was to support the policies upon which I had been elected to a steel constituency. Today I can say that I never regretted going into the Lobby wholeheartedly in support of the policies that the Government set for the steel industry. Today, tomorrow and in the future my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will represent a steel constituency. If we had not taken those decisions in 1980–81, my hon. Friend would represent not a steel constituency, but an industrial desert.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe for the way that he has represented that constituency. Like me, my hon. Friend recognises that it is important to tell steel workers the truth and to vote in support of one's own Government when one knows that that will benefit the steel industry in the long term. Steel workers will then vote Conservative. My hon. Friend's presence here today is testimony to that.

Mr. Crowther: Does the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) recall that when Mr. MacGregor, as part of his corporate plan, proposed to close down Normandy park he appeared on television with me and strenuously defended the decision to close the works on the ground that it would guarantee the future safety of the rest of the steel industry in Scunthorpe? How many jobs were lost in Scunthorpe after the hon. Gentleman approved the closure of Normandy park?

Mr. Brown: I shall answer the question with pleasure. I recall the interview. It was in line with the speech that I made to the House in November 1980 when the decision to close Normandy park was announced. The capacity of Scunthorpe today as a result of the decision to close Normandy park is higher than expected. Of course. some jobs have been lost subsequent to that decision. I do not


know the exact figure, but relatively few were lost. It was always made clear by the Government, by Mr. MacGregor and by myself that the closure of Normandy park of itself did not mean that we would give up the battle to become efficient. It did not mean that we would give up the battle to achieve 271 tonnes per man-year output. Nowadays we have to look further than job losses. The 271 tonnes per man-year is the important statistic which will guarantee future jobs in the steel industry.

Mr. Hickmet: What happened in Scunthorpe and elsewhere was simply the precursor to what is happening now in the rest of Europe. Since 1979 the Government have succeeded in putting the British Steel Corporation in the most competitive position that it has been in for many years. The Italians are reducing capacity by 6 million tonnes, Belgium by 5 million tonnes, France is planning to make a quarter of its steel workers redundant and Germany is examining the prospect of taking out 10 million tonnes of capacity.

Mr. Brown: I agree with those statistics. They clearly show that our steel industry has already taken decisions which are now being taken by the rest of Europe.
Perhaps I have been provocative, but I shall now try to find a common cause with the hon. Member for Rotherham, a distinguished member of the Select Committee which produced an excellent report on the future of the steel industry. The Select Committee took the view that there was no room for further capacity cuts, and I agree with that. Because of the policies instituted by this Government four or five years ago, which were carried out with such effectiveness by Mr. MacGregor and supported by the work force in the steel communities, there is now the possibility that the market for the United Kingdom output of steel can be sustained by five integrated steelworks. I commend that section of the Select Committee's report to my hon. Friends. However, we must constantly underline the need for competitiveness and that supply and demand should, as far as possible, be in line. On the basis of the industry's output, its costs and its profits, I think that we can justify the retention of five integrated steelworks.
The figures in last year's annual report, recently produced by the British Steel Corporation, show that the Select Committee's optimism is justified. In 1983–84, the industry's exports had risen by 15 per cent. to the highest figure for five years. The role that British Steel has found for itself in the export market shows that there is room for the optimism in the report. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham and his colleagues for producing such a fine report.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry, the British Steel Corporation, the work force and, above all, to Mr. Bill Sirs, the general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. Mr. Sirs is a distinguished trade union leader and his words during the past few weeks have been little different from the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East when he was Secretary of State, the words of his successors, and the words of Mr. MacGregor two or three years ago.
I recall the laughter in the Chamber when, time after time, the only message that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State and Mr. MacGregor could offer to the

work force was that we must retain our markets and supply our customers with the products they wanted at prices they could afford. During the past few months, Mr. Sirs has said nothing more nor less than that. He has shown great courage. Of course, we all want a unified trade union movement. I do not think that any Conservative Member derives any pleasure from seeing trade union leader fight trade union leader. That is not healthy for industrial democracy or good will—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) laughs. I am making a serious point. I hope that he derives no pleasure from the fact that Bill Sirs has had to write the sort of article that was printed in the national newspapers last week. I do not derive pleasure from that, and nor do my hon. Friends. We do not derive any pleasure from seeing the triple alliance—

Mr. Crowther: The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Mr. Brown: Of course I speak for myself, but I cannot believe that I am not speaking for the whole House in saying that we derive no pleasure from seeing Bill Sirs fighting the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers. Surely the Opposition would agree with me on that—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has dropped into the Chamber for a few moments, will take—

Mr. John Prescott: Rubbish.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may call what I have said rubbish, but I hope that he is not calling what Mr. Bill Sirs has said rubbish. Now that the Humber bridge is built, some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents may work in Scunthorpe. He should remember that the words of Mr Sirs are those of a wise trade unionist who, when time and occasion demanded, was willing to take industrial action on behalf of his members. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises what he is saying. He should read the articles in the national press written by Mr Sirs who, not only on behalf of the steel workers but on behalf of manufacturing industry as a whole, has stood up against one man.
The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred to the coal mining dispute and said that there was little standing in the way of a negotiated settlement. He may be right. Only one person stands in the way of a negotiated settlement, and that is Mr. Arthur Scargill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. While it is in order to discuss the coal mining dispute in relation to the steel industry, I hope that hon. Members will not be led into a discussion about the dispute itself.

Mr. Brown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was incited to go down a road that I recognise was out of order.
It is important to recognise that, with the justified optimism in the Select Committee report and the excellent policies that have led to the creation of one of the best steel industries in the world, only Mr. Scargill's coal dispute stands in the way of ultimate success for steel workers in general and for the steel industry in particular.
Six coal mines in south Yorkshire —11 throughout Britain — supply the Scunthorpe steelworks in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I hope that all will recognise the


importance of the steel industry to the coal mining industry. I hope that all will recognise the words of Mr. Bill Sirs. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will give Mr. Sirs the same support as he has given to the leader of the NUM. Bill Sirs is a distinguished trade unionist and we can all learn many lessons from what he has had to say on behalf of the steel industry.

Mr. Crowther: I am listening with great interest and approval to the words in praise of Mr. Sirs. But did the hon. Gentleman support Mr. Sirs in 1980? Did he support him while he was opposing closures in the iron and steel industry? Why, suddenly, has Mr. Sirs become a great man? The hon. Gentleman should have supported him before.

Mr. Brown: I think that Mr. Sirs would be the first to admit that he and his union learnt the hard way. They learnt that the strike in December, January, February and March of 1979–80 led to the loss of jobs.
I think I hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East saying, "We won". I presume he means that, in his view, the steel workers won. In fact, they lost as a result of that strike. Bill Sirs has made it clear that an industrial dispute of the kind which was prosecuted by his union in 1979–80 and the dispute now being prosecuted by the coal miners will in the long run result in fewer jobs in the steel industry, and, ultimately, less opportunity in the coal industry.
I congratulate all concerned on what they have achieved in the steel industry, including the Government, the British Steel Corporation, the workforce and its union leader. Only one man stands between solving the miners' dispute and between success and failure in the steel industry.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The vitriol which, no doubt, Conservative Members have been, advised to use in this debate was personified in the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I, too, recall the steel strike of 1980. I remember seeing Mr. Bill Sirs on television with tears in his eyes, but I do not recollect him being supported by Conservative Members.
It is a matter of pride for me, as we address ourselves to the problems of the steel industry, that some of the foremost supporters of the miners in their present dispute in Lanarkshire are people employed in the steel industry —an industry which, despite the tone of the Minister's speech and the remarks of Conservative Members, still feels insecure.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said that he had attended every steel debate in the House for the last five years. I do not want to split hairs, but I suggest that he was wrong. I have been in the House for two years and in that time have initiated two Adjournment debates—[Interruption.]—on the future of the steel industry in Scotland. That may be a laughing matter for Conservative Members; their sense of humour is as repugnant as their economic policies.
In those debates, I presented what I thought was a reasonable case for the future of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. When replying to those debates, the Minister did not give the assurances to which we were entitled. For example, he did not give the sort of assurances which the figures in the order now before the House suggest that he should have given.
Is it not time that the Government stopped taunting Ravenscraig? In view of the success of the steel industry which Conservative Members have drawn to our attention, is it not time that we stopped speculating about the future of any one of the five major plants, and in particular told Ravenscraig that it has made such great strides forward that it has a sure future?
I say that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) knows, in my constituency is the Gartcosh plant. The future of that plant is not only important to the future of the steel industry generally but is of great importance to the future of Ravenscraig. In other words, if there are worries about Ravenscraig, there are bound to be fears about Gartcosh. My area once boasted proudly of its coal and steel industries. Today, we do not have one pit, following the closure of Cardowan last year. Should anything happen to Gartcosh, we will not have one steel job in my constituency.
Time and again we are told by Conservative Members —the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made a big point of it — that this is an argument solely concerned with markets. In the constituency which I formerly represented, which is now represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), we had the Imperial tube works. I regret to see that the Minister is leaving the Chamber because he had a major part to play at that time. Perhaps he is not leaving but is simply seeking assistance from his civil servants. I am surprised that he must seek assistance so soon. I have only begun to make the major points that I wish to put to him.
We were told at that time by Mr. Ian MacGregor that 300 jobs at the Imperial works could not be saved, and he was supported in that statement by various Ministers. We were told that there was no need for those jobs because the markets did not exist to support them. Previously, however, we had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, because of activity in the Northorth sea, there would be prosperity in the tube industry. Mr. MacGregor, supported by Ministers, did not share that view, and those jobs went.
Shortly after those 300 men at Imperial were made redundant—at high cost to the taxpayer and, no doubt, to the EEC—150 new people were recruited within the following two or three months. Since Mr. MacGregor, supported by Ministers, assured us then that those jobs had to go because there were no markets, yet markets suddenly materialised shortly afterwards, have we any reason to believe that Mr. MacGregor is right today in what he says about the mining industry?
An event in recent times which I welcome has been the departure of Mr. MacGregor from the steel industry. He created almost as much havoc there as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—I was recently in Asia—created in Hong Kong. Now, Mr. MacGregor has taken his havoc with him to the coal industry.
Having referred to recent successes in the steel industry, the Minister might at least have expressed public appreciation of the efforts of the workers in that industry, for the main achievement belongs to them. Despite the lack of confidence that they felt — and although Ministers would not give assurances about the future of steel plants that are still with us—the workers went on to produce the outstanding results that we see today.
To be fair to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, he reminded us that, in the last quarter of


1983–84, BSC's steel output rose to 271 tonnes per man —year compared with 259 tonnes in Germany and 225 in France. That is a great tribute to BSC workers. I am proud of the workers in my constituency, but the Minister is knocking the heart out of them by producing again the hoary old story of privatisation. The men did not achieve those productivity levels so as to see their industry privatised. They have competed successfully with other countries, the steel industries of which are subsidised to the hilt. For example, France has not given any assurance that by the end of 1985 it will accept the same EEC view of subsidies as has been imposed on, and accepted by, Ministers for the British industry. The employees and their families in the British steel industry are entitled to a greater assurance about the future.
There is a relationship between the future of the coal industry and that of the steel industry. The Labour party has been arguing the point about this infrastructure for many years. We have argued that if, for example, Ravenscraig were closed, that would reflect not only on the coal industry but on the small service industries, and the large public corporations such as electricity and gas, which would suffer. The job losses on paper would be far exceeded by the job losses in reality. The closure of Ravenscraig would be a grave blow for Lanarkshire.
In the light of the achievements of the steel workers and the modest successes that we are seeing, if the Government were prepared to get out of the hair of British Steel, allow it to compete in markets and capture them, and protect it from competition with other countries that are subsidising their steel industries to the hilt, the British steel industry would have a future. In spite of the borrowing figures that the House is considering, unless the Minister's reply is an improvement on his opening speech, I, for one, will not have much confidence. Bill Sirs has rightly led the opposition to the Government's policies, and still does, and he can expect and accept the same reaction from Labour Members.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: At the beginning of the debate I raised with the Minister the joint venture project known at Phoenix II, through the medium of which the Government propose to merge BSC special steels and Guest, Keen and Nettlefold, although originally a greater range of companies was rumoured to be involved. I did so because, as the Minister knows, I have a profound constituency interest in this matter. The Minister can confirm that, over the past three or four years, I have repeatedly pressed him for information about either the state of discussions or, more recently, what proposals were available. Most recently, I pressed him on when the Government could be expected to come to a decision. He will know that my concern arises from the widespread fear in my constituency that the Tinsley park works in the east end of Sheffield, which may be a party to any Phoenix that takes off, may be at risk.
I can understand why the Minister has not been able to be more forthcoming. Notably, he has been worried about commercial confidentiality. However, he must know that recently the feeling is that it is not just commercial confidentiality that is holding up the Government's statement, but that something—as I hinted earlier—has gone wrong. As he must know, because his office will be

reading the reports in the press, it is believed that the Government are having second thoughts, or are even backing out.
The Minister must know that even the BSC executive Bob Scholey has recently voiced warnings about the difficulties that will attend future joint ventures. He has said:
Unless the market circumstances, demand and prices are such that you can launch the thing so that it can really and truly stand on its own feet, you are not being responsible.
No doubt Bob Scholey, when he was putting that warning on record, had in mind the experience of another joint venture, known as Phoenix III, in which my constituency was also involved. It gave rise to Sheffield Forgemasters.
The Minister will be aware to the lessons of that joint venture, born of the merger of Firth Brown and BSC River Don. It must be in the mind not only of the Minister but of all those planning future denationalisation projects. Sheffield Forgemasters lost £18 million in the first year and more in the second. Mr. Scholey continued:
The problems worrying the private and public sector steel managers planning denationalisation projects have been exhibited in Forgemasters. You set off with all good intentions, market prospects and the prospects of prices rising, and that never happens.
The Minister will be familiar with these views of Mr. Scholey. I wonder whether they are not now weighing in his judgment and that of his advisers.
It is not merely the finding of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that will be weighing with the Minister, but the experience of his office in other joint venture projects. The statement following the publication of the Select Committee report by its Chairman, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), a friend of the Minister, that it would create a private sector monopoly in engineering steels has also to be borne in mind. The Committee Chairman said in a newspaper article:
a loss-making rump, which would result from Government privatisation policy, would not be in the interests of the steel industry, customers or the taxpayer.
There is another warning for the Minister. Such warnings have come from men who are basing them either on experience of the industry or on the findings of a Select Committee that has the respect of the House.
Another consideration that will weigh with hon. Members as well as with the Minister is the recent change in merger policy and the increased emphasis on competition policy. Might that have an effect on the merger between BSC special steels and GKN, if it were to come about? A year ago, I raised with the Director General of Fair Trading the possibility of such a merger, if Phoenix II were to get off the ground, and suggested that this would not be in the public interest. He did not then take that view but I wonder whether he might now take such a view. What is the point of the recent change of merger policy if it was intended only to give an increased emphasis to competition policy?
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about the concern that he and his colleagues on both sides of the House who served on the Select Committee feel about sourcing policies. The Minister will know that that is a real danger, given the possible emergence of Phoenix II. It must have an effect on imports. It is a consideration in the minds not only of Members of Parliament and of the Minister but of people in the industry. They do not like to be confined to a single


source, but nor do they want to be driven to going overseas. However, there are some of them who will take what for them is that very unpalatable step.
There is the further consideration of cost. What will be the cost to the public purse? Although the Minister cannot be drawn on this, he must know that it is a very real factor. What is to be the reaction of the Treasury? The Treasury will not feel happy, never mind right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, about such a lopsided and inequitable arrangement as will be any merger between BSC special steels and GKN, where 50 per cent. and no more of the stake will be held by BSC special steels although it is well known that it will be providing far in excess of 50 per cent. of the asset value..
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) thought that this "was a return to taxpayers on their investment from which they would feel some satisfaction." If I have quoted the hon. Gentleman wrongly, I shall take the first opportunity to withdraw, but I think that I understood what he was getting at. I hope that he will see that a merger such as is now intended and which I have very fairly described cannot really be in the interest of taxpayers, certainly not to begin with. Given the example of Sheffield Forgemasters, it may not be in the interests of British taxpayers for a very long time to come. It might not be in the interests of taxpayers at all given the change in the market position in recent months..
BSC special steels is in a different position now from the position that it was in a few months ago. I shall not stray into any reference to the present industrial crisis, but BSC special steels has kept clear of recent industrial disruption. It is blessed with electric arc furnaces, but it is producing and it is selling.
I shall be paying my customary annual visit during the recess to BSC locally in the east end of Sheffield and in south Yorkshire, and I am sure that I shall hear the same kind of optimistic results there as we have heard from other hon. Members on both sides of the House. If there are grounds for this optimism in special steels, again why are we going ahead?
I come finally to the feeling in my own constituency, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I dwell a little on that. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that jobs are uppermost in the minds of my constituents. In recent years my constituency has been devastated. There is scarcely any industry left in what was once the most industrial constituency probably in the world. If there was a more industrially concentrated constituency, I was not aware of it. Today anyone driving up the M1 and leaving it at Tinsley viaduct and then driving along Attercliffe common the two miles into the centre of Sheffield will look almost in vain to right and to left for any industry. All that he will see is acres of clearance.
However, I still have Tinsley park. I do not have Hadfields any longer, which was party to this development about a year ago. That has already gone. But Tinsley park remains, though it is only fair to say that those who work there are as anxious that Tinsley park should survive as I am, not only because of the jobs involved, which must be a prime factor in the minds of everyone, but also because of their pride in it. The plant has a proven track record of efficiency.
I am wondering just how much that plant has suffered during the past four years because of these discussions

about its future and then because of the delay in coming up with proposals and the further delay in the Department in arriving at a decision about those proposals.
I wonder how much Tinsley park has suffered in investment terms. It has been denied investment. It does not have continuous casting. That is what puts it at risk. Might it not have had it at any time over the past four years? This is a new plant. It is modern. It is a plant in which we all take pride. Hon. Members may be wondering why I am speculating in this way. I am only echoing the fears of my constituents, and they are genuine.
In terms of investment, modernisation and its claims to survive, Tinsley park might not have suffered because of the protracted length of discussions about the possible shape of a Phoenix II, whereas inevitably during the past four years it has cast a shadow over that work force, and men are angry about it.
Other BSC workers in south Yorkshire whose jobs are not under immediate threat fear that pension rights and other long-established conditions of employment may be changed for the worse should they find themselves working in the new Phoenix company outside BSC. In south Yorkshire workers dread that Phoenix II will mean the end of their works and their jobs. Other workers only a few miles away in plants which feel secure are also in dread of the fundamental change in working conditions resulting from a Phoenix joint venture..

Mr. Hardy: Recently there has been a degree of anxiety which is relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making. Those people who have left the steel industry and engaged in courses supposedly funded by the EEC have been able to receive their wages from BSC during the courses while they wait for the EEC decision about the renewal of the grant of those funds. Other workers who entered the same courses and who were employed by the private sector of steel have not enjoyed the same facility. That has not created a particularly helpful climate in the industry in south Yorkshire.

Mr. Duffy: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him. Both he and I are concerned to make the best possible case for our own local industry, and I hope that the House will not think that I have failed in that.
I understand the Minister's position. However, I hope that he will understand my position and that of my hon. Friend in trying fairly to represent our constituents and to convey to him their anxieties in asking on their behalf when the Government will come to a decision. If it is delayed further, will the cut-off date of the end of 1985 because of EEC requirements affect such a joint development? Will the Minister ensure that the public interest is also safeguarded? I hope that he will not allow his anxiety to further the cause of privatisation to lead to what might be seen in south Yorkshire as an unforgivable betrayal of an industry into which so much dedicated effort and public money has been invested. I hope, too, that he will avoid any charge of selling it off at give-away prices to private buyers..

Mr. Richard Holt: I apologise to both Front Bench speakers for not being present at the beginning of the debate. In fact, I had not intended to intervene in it, being comparatively new to the steel industry, but, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg


and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), I am possibly less charitable in pointing out that the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) has not seen fit to be present today. Although the Redcar steelworks is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the satellite element of Skinningrove and Carlin How falls within my constituency.
The debate so far has made no mention of Redcar, and it is perhaps the example sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to explain why many Opposition Members have chosen not to be present. I refer, of course, to the immense success of the Redcar steelworks. I recently spent a day going round the works. The men there were very proud of their achievements of the past few years. I am not as familiar with the statistics as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, but the men were justly proud to tell me that in the past four years the number of man hours required to produce a ton of steel had been reduced by two thirds, from 13 to 4·4 hours. At the same time, the earnings of workers there are now higher than ever.
The men are happy in the knowledge that their industry in Redcar and in the satellite that I represent is secure far into the future. That was not so five years ago. The uncertainty has been removed. The plant will now fail to succeed only if the market contracts. However, new markets have recently been obtained, and some expansion is in prospect. There has been investment in the plant. The new coke oven is on stream. There are 7,100 workers at the plant as opposed to 15,000 previously, but they are producing more than 100 per cent. of the capacity produced by the 15,000 workers.
It was distressing to learn from the accountants that if it were not for the burden of the rates imposed by Langbaurgh council the plant would be even more competitive and would be able to employ more people. We are all concerned to ensure that people have work. It is worrying that so many jobs are lost because local council, are irresponsible in spending other people's money. The steelworks is the only major industry in Redcar. If steelmaking declined further because of the impost of the rates, the effect not only on steel workers in the area but on other workers too would be highly detrimental.
Redcar is a shining example of the success of the past few years. I was struck to learn from the management that no new managers had been brought in from outside the industry by Mr. MacGregor. Mr. MacGregor came to the industry and gave it leadership. He found out what was wrong and put it right, and the works is now in the hands of people who have been there all the time. They have a pride in what they are doing, and in their industry.
However, it would be unwise for the Government not to continue to invest in this part of the public sector. We must bear in mind the difference between the north of England and the south where jobs are concerned. I urge Ministers to visit the Redcar area. I urge as many people as possible to go there to see how important it is for the steel industry to be maintained and for the investment which the Government are directing into the industry—albeit into the public sector—to be continued until such time as the whole steel industry can be made private for the benefit of us all.
What the industry needs now is an opportunity to settle down after the repercussions of the events of the past five years. After that short, sharp, clinical exercise, the

industry requires a period of recuperation. The industry is not helped by the antics of the coal mining dispute. The steel workers of Redcar have no sympathy for the miners, who are seeking to destroy all that they have achieved in the past five years.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I must apologise to the Minister for having missed the first two lines of his speech. However, as I have heard every other speech that the Minister has made on this industry, I expect that I know the first two lines by heart.
I was saddened by the terms and tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). It is a pity when an hon. Member enters the Chamber halfway through a debate and then complains about the absence of another hon. Member. I speak personally, not as an Opposition spokesman, but I have always thought it childish, petty and dangerous for hon. Members to complain about the absence of others without first checking on the reasons for their absence. I have never become involved in such tactics. There is no more assiduous attender in the Chamber than my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn), and it was a pity that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh spoilt a reasonably good speech by that silly point. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) properly withdrew his own comment in that regard. I hope that the comment will not rebound to the discredit of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh during some future debate when he may have good cause not to be here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) has requested to know the position in relation to Phoenix II, involving BSC and GKN in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe has attended one steel debate after another and raised that single point with great consistency. He wants to know the position of the Phoenix II project.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) made the point that, to his knowledge, the proposals had been with the Minister since 19 December last year. The House is now about to rise for the summer recess, but the Government have still not reached a decision on this important project which will have an important effect on the Tinsley works in my hon. Friend's constituency. I hope that the Minister of State, in his usual helpful manner, will be able to tell my hon. Friend and his constituents something about this matter. The project should have been cleared by this time. Delays in reaching a decision lead to suspicion. The Minister of State may say that there is no cause for concern, but when a project has been in the Minister's hands for over seven months the Minister will understand the concern, if not the suspicion, so constantly expressed by my hon. Friend.
The debate has been wide-ranging, yet within the bounds of order. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made an enthusiastic speech.

Mr. Michael Brown: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ewing: I hear the hon. Gentleman expressing his confidence. The hon. Gentleman says that he was confident in 1979. He says that he was confident about the steel workers in 1980 and in 1981. However, he was not confident in 1983. He did not stay to fight his constituency. He ran away.

Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman ran away to the seaside and left the steel workers to his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet).

Mr. Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the name of my constituency?

Mr. Ewing: It is Brigg and Cleethorpes.

Mr. Brown: What was the name of my old constituency?

Mr. Ewing: It was Brigg and Scunthorpe.

Mr. Brown: How is it possible for one Member to represent a constituency that has been cut into two halves?

Mr. Ewing: I have obviously touched a raw nerve. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes does not relish this appearing in his local newspaper, though his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe relishes that prospect. I think that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes chose wisely, especially when I look at the size of the parliamentary majorities. I do not think that his confidence that his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will represent steel workers for a long time will prove justified at the next election.
I do not intend to dwell on what the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said, because, even by his standards, it was fairly low-grade—barely sixth-form—stuff. However, he justified his support for the Government's proposals between 1979 and 1982, but it was significant that he did not mention that, as a result of that support, whole areas of the country were decimated. Perhaps his area was not as badly affected as others, but there were some effects there. The works at Consett were closed and 7,000 jobs were lost.Steel treatment continues at Ebbw Vale and Shotton, but steel production was stopped. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the proposals that he supported devasted whole areas of steel production.
The Minister of State, in his honest moments, will admit that every time the EEC has laid down diktats that we must accept restrictions on our steel output, the Government have accepted the new quotas.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been hectoring about personal behaviours—and I do not disagree with him — but before he talks about running away from seats, he ought to realise that my previous constituency, which had an electorate of nearly 110,000, was cut in half. How can one hon. Member stand for two constituencies? Scunthorpe now has two Conservative voices, whereas previously it had only one. The second voice is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), who is here because of my decision.
I fully recognise that, in voting as I did in 1979–80, I was voting for redundancies. Between 7,000 and 8,000 people in my previous constituency were made redundant and there were a number of redundancies in my present constituency. However, I said at the time that I voted as I did because the Government's proposals held out the best prospect for a steel industry in the future — in Scunthorpe and elsewhere.

Mr. Ewing: I do not want to continue the debate about which half of the constituency the hon. Gentleman chose to fight. However, I am a good lip reader and it looked to me as if the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was saying that his hon. Friend should have taken the other half.

Mr. Hickmet: May I inject a serious note into this amusing farce? The hon. Gentleman said that my sojourn in the House would be a short one. However, steel workers have been waiting for the Labour party to condemn the attempt of Mr. Arthur Scargill to make them redundant at Llanwern, Ravenscraig and Scunthorpe. The hon. Gentleman says that those workers will not vote Conservative at the next election, but I can tell him that there is no prospect of their voting Socialist, because that means supporting the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), which means supporting Arthur Scargill, which means closing steel plants.

Mr. Ewing: I apologise to the House for giving way. If the hon. Gentleman had been present at a recent Trade and Industry Question Time, he would have heard me set out the Opposition's policy. The steel industry is as important to the miners as the mining industry is to the steel workers. That is the position on which the Labour party has stood since the dispute began.
I return to the point that I was making about EEC quotas. We want an absolute assurance that the Government will not accept any more reductions in the steel quotas for our industry. I think that the Minister of State will admit that one of the problems over the years, particularly in the past five or six years, is that the EEC crisis measures—when the BSC annual report refers to crisis measures, it is referring to the EEC steel quotas—have always affected our steel industry more than the industries of other member states.
We have always had to bear the heavy end of reductions in steel output and, therefore, reductions in the number of people working in the industry. It is a sobering thought that since 1974 the number of people working in our steel industry, private and public, has fallen from 200,000 to 71,000.
I do not say that the reduction is directly attributable to Government policies or to Mr. MacGregor's activities, with which I disagree. The main cause has been the crisis measures adopted by the EEC. They have fallen much more heavily on our industry than on Germany, Belgium and France. One reason why France and Germany are being asked to cut back is that they have had it easy over the past six or seven years, but there is no doubt that the proposed cutbacks on production in Germany and France will be nowhere near as severe as the cuts that were made here. We want an assurance from the Minister that he will not accept any more reductions in quotas.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe mentioned pricing. The history of pricing in the steel industry is interesting. In 1983, there was a collapse in the market. One contributory factor was the collapse in the value of the pound against the deutschmark. It was only at the beginning of 1984 that steel prices began to pick up. Only then did the market begin to recover its buoyancy.
Conservative Members will argue that one reason for the difficulties confronting the steel industry is the dispute in the coal industry. I have made the Opposition's view clear, but the Government must now make up their mind. The Secretary of State for Energy came into the Chamber a few minutes ago, but left quickly, because he did not want to embarrass the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy was on Brian Walden's programme. I shall not misquote or take him out of context, but he said that the


coal dispute was having no effect. When the Minister was challenged on that, he admitted that production has been maintained at a remarkably high level.

Mr. Hickmet: rose——

Mr. Ewing: I shall not give way, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is determined to stir up trouble between steel workers and coal miners, and I do not want to give him that opportunity.

Mr. Hickmet: rose——

Mr. Ewing: I shall not give way. I am trying to introduce some sense into the debate. The Minister will have to make up his mind who is right. Either the Department of Trade and Industry, which claims that the dispute in the coal industry is having a dramatic effect——

Mr. Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should not pay attention to the PPS.

Mr. Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman made an accusation against me and my motives for the stance that I have taken throughout this dispute for the past 20 weeks. He said that I was determined to stir up trouble between the coal miners and the steel workers. Am I right in thinking that he is obliged, by convention, to give way and to give me an opportunity to answer that accusation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): It is for whoever has the Floor to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Ewing: The Minister must make up his mind whether the Department of Trade and Industry is correct in saying that the coal mining dispute is having a fairly serious effect on the steel industry, or whether the Department of Energy and the Secretary of State for Energy are correct in saying that it is not having any effect. That is what the Secretary of State for Energy said on Brian Walden's programme. It does not do one Minister any good to go on protesting that a dispute is having an effect on another industry and for another Minister to claim that it is having no effect. That just adds to the confusion. The Minister should say which of those views is right. Is it that of the Department of Trade and Industry or that of the Secretary of State for Energy? One thing is certain, and that is that they cannot both be right.
I turn to another aspect of the viability of the steel industry that has so far not been raised, although it is specifically mentioned in the BSC's annual report, to which the Minister referred—the price of scrap steel. There is a paragraph in the annual report—I think on page 8 — that mentions, in particular, the difficulties being created for the BSC. Although we are not debating the iron castings industry, that industry is also affected. However, the BSC makes it clear that over the period covered by the report the price of scrap steel has increased by 50 per cent. I think that that figure has been overtaken by events. My information is that the price of scrap steel has increased by about 120 per cent. in the past year, due to the substantial export of what is, to the steel casting industry, a basic raw material. Recently, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking him to

impose the export quotas that are within the Government's power. I think that it was the Minister who replied, saying that he could not see any case for imposing the export quotas.
Yet, in the BSC's annual report, the chairman specifically mentions that the corporation is looking, with some encouragement, to the directive being discussed by the EEC, with a view to imposing quotas on the export of scrap steel. An increase of at least 100 per cent. in the price of a basic raw material will have a serious effect on any manufacturing industry operating on the margin, and that must worry the Government. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that aspect of the annual report, and where it fits into the £500 million increase in borrowing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned the role of GKN in the Phoenix II project. Worries have been expressed about GKN and its position as a major steel user and — as it will become — steel producer. The Government will have to consider the situation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham explained the point clearly enough for the Minister to give us some idea of the Government's thinking on this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. I hope that the British steel industry has now reached a stage at which the Minister can give us a guarantee about all five plants. As has been said, it is not a case of competition between Llanwern and Ravenscraig. We need all five integrated plants. If the new-found optimism that seems to have permeated our debate is justified, the Minister must be able to assure us that all five integrated plants will be required, so that we can forget, once and for all, any threat to the future of Ravenscraig. My view is that Ravenscraig will survive. I do not now believe that it is in any danger. Indeed, great tribute has been paid to the work force.
We hope that the British steel industry is now in a position to take off. We also hope that the Minister will not say that this will be its permanent shape and form. If the United Kingdom's economy is based on steel output of 11 million tonnes, it will not be very large. Therefore, I hope that one of the reasons for the order is that the steel industry is at the beginning of a growth period. I hope also that this new-found optimism will lead the Minister to tell us that Ravenscraig is secure and that there is a future for Gartcosh.

Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Does he agree that the cuts that have taken place in both the public and private sectors of the steel industry have reduced it to a level at which it might well prove impossible for the British steel industry to take advantage of any significant increase in demand, should the economic situation change? It may well be that any future demand from the steel users will merely result in an increase in imports because of the terrible cuts in capacity that have already taken place.

Mr. Ewing: That is a very real danger. Indeed, we have mentioned it time and again in our debates. It is very dangerous for any industry, particularly the steel industry, to have its output reduced to a level at which it cannot possibly take off in the event of an economic recovery. I hope that the Minister will soon come to the House to announce plans for some form of expansion in the steel industry based on the Government's own economic


optimism. As I said, if this country's economy is based on 11 million tonnes, it does not have a very bright future. That is the whole point.
I do not wish to be derogatory, but the Minister did not say how and on what the £500 million is to be spent. I should like some details about what the money is for. What will be the effect on BSC of the Government's decision to phase out regional development grant? I understand that BSC qualifies for such grant. If the grants are phased out during the next two years, what effect will that have on the finances of BSC and its ability to expand? Moreover, what effect will it have on the use of the £500 million, which the Opposition obviously support?

Mr. Norman Lamont: All of those who have spoken have, to a greater or lesser extent, reflected greater optimism about the steel industry. Inevitably, however, some have been anxious about their constituency interests. We had some forthright constituency speeches. Some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), said that there should be greater certainty. I appreciate his desire but BSC still has some way to go. I detailed its progress but it has some way to go before it reaches enduring viability.
The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) asked about the relationship of investment to the Community and about Community approval for investment. He was right. It is part of the European steel regime that new investment projects be subject to Commission approval. It approved major projects proposed by BSC in the Port Talbot hot stripmill and in the galvanising line at Shotton. He also repeated, not for the first time, the need for concast at Llanwern. He will have heard me say that, if the BSC board proposes such an investment as part of its new corporate plan, the Government will consider it on its merits. However, no such proposal has yet been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) talked about his constituency and the impact of rates on BSC. He is right. We hear much from Opposition Members about the problems that face BSC. Indeed, they quoted some of the chairman's annual report. In that annual report the chairman, just like his predecessor Mr. MacGregor, drew attention to the difficulty BSC faces with its large rates bill.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked about a guaranteed future for the five major plants. I cannot add to what I said in my opening speech. The 1982 decision meant what it said. BSC was asked to prepare its 1983–86 corporate plan on the basis of steel making continuing at the five integrated sites. If BSC wanted to proceed on a different basis in its 1984–87 plan, or if it is forced to do so by the current disruption, it is open to it to make such a proposal to the Government. Such a decision would have to be examined jointly by BSC and the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) said that he understood that I had the corporate plan. I do not, for the good reason that much of what would be in it is difficult to calculate because of the effects of the miners' strike.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister saying that he does not have the corporate plan because of the dispute in the coal industry?

Mr. Lamont: I am saying that the projections for the future are deeply affected by the miners' dispute, as is the impact on BSC's markets. Until the smoke has cleared, it is the chairman's view that it is difficult to assess the factors that have to be in the plan.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East tried to contrast what my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy said on a television programme, which I did not see, with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was referring to the fact that production in BSC has been kept up. We owe BSC and its work force great praise for that. That is not to say that extra costs have not been imposed on BSC. It has incurred extra costs getting in the coal and the coke and as a result of the blend of coals. The dispute is having an impact on BSC but all right hon. and hon. Members welcome the fact that production has been kept at near pre-strike levels.

Mr. Ewing: Perhaps I can take the Minister back to the corporate plan. Can we have the matter on the record? Is he saying that the chairman of BSC has told the Government that, but for the dispute in the coal industry, the Government would now have the corporate plan? It is important to have that on the record.

Mr. Lamont: I have made the matter crystal clear. The chairman has said that much of what would have to be in the corporate plan and which is vital to framing it cannot be included in the present uncertainty. There is no point in the Government and BSC considering the corporate plan until after the strike, when those factors will be clearer.

Mr. Hickmet: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially in view of the accusations that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East made against me. Is it not the case that Scunthorpe has suffered almost the entire cut in BSC production? The record production figure of 61,000 tonnes before the strike has dropped to less than 25,000 tonnes. When it is said that I am attempting to stir up trouble between the mine workers and the steel workers, should it not be borne in mind that, at one time, there were 10,000 men standing on a picket line at Orgreave trying to close the Scunthorpe steelworks by stopping coke going from Orgreave to Scunthorpe? Is that not a disgrace?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Although I have said that BSC has been able to keep production at near pre-strike levels, the situation at Scunthorpe has been extremely serious and, at times, it has come close to closing down. For Scunthorpe and BSC generally, it is a tragedy that miners should try to deny steel workers the fruits of their efforts and sacrifices of the past few years.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lamont: I do not think that we want a debate on the miners' strike. I should have thought that Opposition Members would have agreed about that and would have preferred to debate the steel industry. In my normal way, I have attempted to lower the tension, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister also regret that BSC management did not give the people who made the agreement that Scunthorpe should have the coal that it required time to negotiate an agreement so that coke could have gone to Scunthorpe, thus maintaining the market for south Yorkshire coal and not adding to the already heavily


fuelled bitterness and frustration in south Yorkshire? Does he agree that BSC management at Scunthorpe could have been wiser?

Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He made that point when previously he intervened. The fact is that the NUM, aided and abetted by the rail unions, sought to starve Scunthorpe of its supplies by rail, so the corporation had no option but to look elsewhere. That is why BSC decided to use lorries to run coke from its Orgreave plant. That seems to be perfectly reasonable and lawful. The response was violent picketing on a mass scale, which cannot be justified.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East said that he was sorry that he had missed the first two lines of my speech, but said that he thought he knew what they were—a repetition of previous speeches. I do not plead innocence to that charge, but I must say that some of his themes are pretty well worn.

Mr. Ewing: That is because I do not get any answers.

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman always listens to the answers. He repeated the points about reductions in capacity and reductions in Europe. I am sure that he knows that, because of the decision of 29 June 1983, which was subsequently endorsed by all member states, and the meeting of the steel Council earlier this year, the cuts required in the major countries as a percentage of steel capacity are now as follows: Belgium 19·4 per cent.; Luxembourg 18·4 per cent.; France 19·8 per cent.; Italy 16·1 per cent.; the Netherlands 13 per cent.; the United Kingdom 19·7 per cent.; and Germany 11·3 per cent. Our cuts have already been made. It is clear from those figures that by 1985 those countries will have made reductions in capacity comparable to our own.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was right when he drew attention not just to the commitment on paper but to what is happening on the continent. France has announced 5 million tonnes of cuts and has said that it will take out 20·5 per cent. of steel capacity, which is larger than the original decision required. Luxembourg has said that it will cut steel capacity by 24·9 per cent., which is larger than our reduction and larger than the requirement of 18·4 per cent. The Netherlands has said that it will cut steel capacity by 18·2 per cent., instead of 13 per cent.
If hon. Members doubt that those commitments are real, they should lift their eyes across the channel and look at the telling example in France. We know about the disruption here, but there has not exactly been an absence of disruption in France.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister nevertheless agree that that fact does not invalidate the point I made in my original remarks, that at the time of the terrible carnage in BSC, Italy was expanding its steel production? That is a simple point.

Mr. Lamont: The Italian industry was, of course, in a very different position. I do not want to defend what happened in Italy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to weaken my negotiating stance. We have made it very clear that we think that the Italians should make larger cuts. The Italian Government have pointed out,

first, that there has been growth in their economy and, secondly, that much of the growth in the steel industry happened in the electric arc mini-mills unaided by the public sector.
The House should be in no doubt—hon. Members have heard this before—that we made our cuts when we did because we had to, because we were running up large losses and were uncompetitive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, we are benefiting from the strong competitive position that we established. Both sides of the House have acknowledged that point and the fact that the economic climate is better now than it has been for some time.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked about the article 58 quotas. We have continued to take up that issue with the Commission. Because in 1983 the United Kingdom economy was growing faster than the economy in Europe generally and both steel consumption and steel production were growing faster than in Europe, we have had problems with quotas. I am pleased to report that Commissioner Davignon confirmed at the end of last month that arrangements had been made to deal with BSC's immediate difficulties and that the Commission was ready to devise a lasting solution if the problem persisted. If individual private sector companies face those difficulties, we shall certainly pursue those cases with the Commission.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked also about scrap prices. The hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that scrap prices are notoriously volatile. I note that he is looking at the report. I assure him that I, too, have read what the chairman said in the report. Although recently there have been large price increases, they have taken the prices of scrap only up to the level prevailing in 1979. Moreover, United Kingdom prices are below those on the continent. In that case, the Government do not intend at present to restrict scrap exports.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) came back on the question he had put to me in an intervention about whether the money available under the order covered Phoenix II. I am not sure why he was dissatisfied with my answer. The order is permissive. It would allow BSC to contribute to the new companies' cash needs, if that were the decision. The powers do not, however, require that to happen and could equally be used for investment in engineering steel outside Phoenix II. That point may be more succinctly expressed now, but that is what I said before to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Rotherham put to the House various remarks about the mix of assets and the cash liability that might be shared between BSC and the private sector. He thought that the measure would be poor value for the taxpayer. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot comment on that point at the moment, because the final decisions have not yet been made. The hon. Gentleman will have to examine that aspect, and he will be able to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and myself either in the House or before the Select Committee on whether the measure represents good value for money.
The hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and for Rotherham raised points about a monopoly supplier and customers wanting a choice of supply, and we shall, of course, look at their points. Those aspects are extremely important when making a decision on Phoenix II. As with so many cases, we face a familiar dilemma:


do we want a strong national grouping that is capable of competing against international supplies or do we want to place greater emphasis on domestic competition, which may not be able to cope so well against imports?
The hon. Member for Attercliffe asked whether the Government were backing off on Phoenix II. No, we are not backing off. The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is an immensely important venture, involving not only a BSC contribution and private sector contribution but perhaps the question whether the Government should give assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act. That could be an expensive solution, and must weigh with us heavily. We are not backing off, but the project could be an expensive demand on scarce funds.
The hon. Member for Rotherham attacked the idea of privatisation as applied to the steel corporation. He felt that it was wrong that we should privatise the most profitable bits of nationalised industries. He did not confine his argument to BSC. He said that it was wrong to privatise Jaguar and the warship-building part of British Shipbuilders. Our aim is privatisation; my view and experience is that if one does not privatise when one can, one never does. If one does not privatise when the bits are profitable, one will never privatise.
Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view that it is right to use the profitable bits to subsidise the unprofitable bits. That is the way in which many of the profitable parts of our nationalised industries have been bled of investment. That is why many of them have got into trouble. There are several reasons why it is right to privatise parts of the corporation. One is that the parts that we are privatising at the moment are those which overlap with the private sector. Another reason is to ensure fair competition among the unsubsidised undertakings.
As I said, we intend to go ahead with privatisation. The House must be realistic. We are a long way from privatising basic steel making. Although I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said about his constituents who were apprehensive about that, we are a long way from it. Both sides of the House must agree that it is right to make basic steel making profitable and free from state aid as soon as possible. That is our objective. It is a policy that we intend to follow even when the sums of money allowed under the order are advanced to the corporation.

Mr. Crowther: Before the Minister——

Mr. Lamont: I commend the order to the House.

Resolved,
That the draft British Steel Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Education (Scotland)

Mr. Jim Craigen: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 840), dated 15th June 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be annulled.
The assisted places scheme is now entering its fourth year of operation. Therefore, it would be remiss of the House not to question and debate the amending regulations.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give a number of answers to questions. I understand that, for the convenience of the House, he will be replying at the end of the debate.
My first point relates to the cost of the scheme. I notice that the scheme will cost £3·1 million for 1984–85. I should like the Minister to explain why nearly £500,000 is to be made available by way of direct Government support for private schools, when his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr Ancram), is pressing local authorities strongly over the operation of the rate support grant and the guidelines in respect of education services are being more stringently drawn. The Government propose to claw back £90 million in rate support grant from Scottish local authorities by the end of the year. Strathclyde education authority, for example, will have to look at expenditure reductions of £20 million out of the clawback total of £38 million assigned to the region.
What is the reason for this extra £500,000 of direct Government support? It is not clear from the statutory instrument or the press release issued by the Scottish Office what expansion there is in the operation of the scheme. The press release talked of some further expansion. I shall be asking the Minister whether the increase can be attributed entirely to the increased costs of the existing operation or whether additional places are envisaged.
My second point relates to the relaxation of clothing and travel grants. I understand the reasons behind the introduction of this flexibility. I want to know, however, how the Minister justifies this more generous approach, when local authorities are under increasing pressure to meet the cost of school clothing for many young people attending school. The Minister will be aware that, since the removal of the exceptional needs payments in the 1980 DHSS regulations, most education authorities have been inundated with requests. Many head teachers find decisions over school clothing an unwanted and unpleasant responsibility.
I understand that Strathclyde region is having to spend about £3 million to ensure that young people are adequately clothed and have adequate footwear to attend school, as they must. That has been a duty on local authorities since the Education (Scotland) Act 1918. This has been an unwanted and unhappy side effect of the changes in the DHSS regulations. These payments, which the local authorities must make, are not rate support granted. I hope that the Minister will show the same generosity of spirit, if not purse, when it comes to considering the difficulties and invidious predicament of education authorities over clothing.
My third point relates to the more general issue of closures and declining rolls. I suspect that, but for the assisted places scheme, several independent schools might have difficulties with numbers and financial resources. I asked the Minister earlier about the number of extra places. Does he envisage about 200 or 250 extra places among the 42 schools participating in the scheme? The surprising feature about the assisted places scheme is that the majority of assisted pupils were already in the private sector. I believe that the Minister, in a parliamentary answer, has already shown that about 59 per cent. of assisted pupils were in the private sector.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does not that very fact lay the myth that has often come from Labour Members that the private school sector is used solely by the rich and privileged? Is not the position rather that many people of limited means choose the private sector because it offers a particular benefit for their children?

Mr. Craigen: I do not know about laying myths. I was about to make a point which, knowing the hon. Member's Adam Smith background, might appeal to him. The public purse is now paying for something for which it need not pay at a time when Ministers are denying education authorities, which are charged with statutory responsibilities, the necessary resources to fulfil those responsibilities.
Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will say something about the distribution of places. It appeared to me, looking at the allocation of funds to the participating schools, that there was a somewhat uneven distribution throughout Scotland, and that some schools were benefiting considerably more than others. I have raised those matters simply in the context of the difficulties of viability, which we recognise in these times, because of declining pupil rolls.
With regard to the cost of fees, perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten the House beyond the information that is available either through the statutory instrument or from the Scottish Office press release to which I referred. How does the Scottish Education Department assess value for money among the respective participating schools? I asked the Library to check on some expenditure figures per pupil. It is intriguing that the assisted places are costing more than the maintained places. The Minister shakes his head, but perhaps he will give us the requisite figures. I find it a little disturbing that the available resources per pupil are to go down next year because of the reduced resources that the Government are to make available to education authorities. That will be in contrast to the increases that the Government anticipate in the operation of their assisted places scheme.
The figures that I obtained from Strathclyde regional council show a cost of roughly £1,300 per secondary pupil, but the cost per pupil in the special schools for those with some handicap or disability is £5,000. It is time for the Minister to consider the special schools, where there is no rate support grant. In these difficult days for education authorities, special schools can become very vulnerable. I hope that there will be some recognition of the difficulties facing education authorities in that regard.
It would be helpful to have the Minister's figures to show whether the increase of £500,000 in the cost of the assisted places scheme arises largely or solely because of

increases in the retail price index. Can he quantify the cost of expanding the scheme, as was hinted in the Scottish Office press release? I should like the Minister to comment on some of the intricacies concerning the fees charged by the schools.
Given the Government's original propaganda about the assisted places scheme—and the high optimism of the Minister's predecessor—the assisted places scheme is a costly flop. The number of young people in the scheme is very small in comparison with the overall responsibilities facing education authorities in Scotland. I find it surprising that three in every five assisted pupils were already in the private sector and are now afforded that same facility through the public purse.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I suggest that the reason why a number of pupils continue to be a charge on the scheme is that their parental circumstances have changed adversely. If they were not able to continue in private education under the assisted places scheme, they would become a charge on the state system. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Craigen: One always recognises difficult family circumstances, where a death or some sad incident occurs. I do not think that that makes up for the difference in the numbers that we are talking about.
The Government are proposing almost a 20 per cent. increase in the cost of the scheme at a time when they are trying to reduce—indeed, are reducing—the amount of expenditure on the maintained sector of education. In reply to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), it seems to me that the main impetus here is not so much to assist those whose parents are on lower incomes, which I could readily understand, as to sustain some of the independent schools.
The Minister has some explaining to do tonight over the proposed changes in the amending regulations. I hope to hear from him before the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. James Wallace: I did not expect to be called quite so soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the Minister might have had some support from his own side. None the less, I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) as one who regrets the terms of the regulations not only for what they contain in some detail but because they are part and parcel of a more general scheme which, in my view, bolsters privilege and is rather alien to the traditions of Scottish education.
With regard to the increase of income levels for full remission of fees, it has often been argued that the basis of the scheme is to increase freedom of choice. If in fact it does so, one would suggest that it is limited to a privileged few. The scheme still imports a degree of selectivity, inasmuch as people have to pass a test. One also suspects that the additional choice that is available is limited geographically. The hon. Member for Maryhill made some reference to that.
It would be interesting if the Minister were to tell us, within broad geographic areas — it would be more interesting if it could be broken down according to parliamentary constituencies — where the recipients of benefit under the scheme come from. I suspect that few, if any, of them come from my constituency or from other


Highland and Island constituencies. A high proportion of the sums that were made available for 1983 were spent in Edinburgh. One imagines that many of the recipients who benefited from the scheme also came from the Edinburgh area.
As the hon. Member for Maryhill has pointed out, the figures show that 59 per cent. of pupils who received benefits under the scheme previously attended fee-paying schools — 1,048 from a total of 1,781. The figures demonstrate that the scheme has not been greatly extended to state-educated pupils, but subsidises three out of five of the pupils who have already benefited from it. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) suggested that that was partly due to the fact that the system had assisted parents whose financial circumstances had changed. I suspect that parents who undertook the financial responsibility to send their children to fee-paying schools may have fallen on harder times. Headmasters pointed out the assisted places scheme, and parents took advantage of it.
This is a superannuated form of supplementary benefit. The Government should come clean and tell us. I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden that a considerable burden would have been placed on the maintained sector if children had come from the private sector. The schools where five pupils have obtained places under the scheme, the school facilities and the fabric of the building must still be maintained, and the teachers need to be paid. The additional cost of those children to the maintained sector is low.
The next part of the order relates to travel grants. More public money will be channelled into private education. Again, I suspect that the incentives will lead to the brighter and more affluent pupils being creamed off from poor communities, and bussed to fee-paying schools in better areas. That will further depress the low morale in state-maintained schools.
Increases in clothing grants will be of greater benefit to pupils in the private than in the maintained sectors. I understand, from the pupil's viewpoint, why the scheme is being changed to allow an annual, increased grant, but it will come hard to a pupil who is unable to wear school uniform or whose uniform is not in good shape. Children make cruel remarks about pupils who stand out. The principle underlying the regulations seems to be that there should be one law for the affluent and privileged, and another for those who must make do with state provision. We are told time and again that the scheme will promote freedom of choice, but we doubt that.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he is in favour of the state providing more resources for the less able and handicapped pupils, but seems to be so embittered about, and so against, extra resources being made available for especially gifted and bright children?

Mr. Wallace: I have not said anything about specially gifted or bright children. I was making the point that provision has been made for only 1,700 pupils. They do not necessarily fall into the category of the specially gifted and bright. Special provision has been made for them far in excess of that for children in much greater need who attend local authority-maintained schools.
Another provision of the regulations is notification of fee increases to the Secretary of State. I do not object to

the fact that the notice has been reduced from two months to one. Will the Minister tell us, under this section, how many applications have been made to the Secretary of State for fee increases, and whether they pertain at the beginning of or only midway through a session? Much of the income of fee-paying schools is obtained from fees, so it would be interesting to know how much fees have increased since the scheme came into operation compared to funding for the maintained sector.
Some of us doubt very much that the scheme will improve freedom of choice. The Government's underlying assumption is that the schools which participate in the scheme are somewhat better than their counterparts in the maintained sector. It is staggering that the Government response to the difference between these sectors is to starve the maintained sector, which caters for more than 95 per cent. of Scottish pupils. Morale is low and teachers are introducing curriculum reforms with only a modest increase in resources. The Government are channelling £3·1 million into the private sector.
The Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week that local education authorities in many parts of Scotland will be forced to consider cuts in basic educational facilities. Some rural areas may suffer from the withdrawal of peripatetic teachers because of a shortage of funds, and will lose teachers of music, physical education and arts and crafts. One wonders what freedom of choice will be allowed to the pupils of rural schools. Surely the real question of choice concerns whether Scottish pupils will be allowed an education that will provide them with a wide range of career options and give them the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We question whether that will be possible in schools with leaking roofs, where books are old and outdated and cannot be replaced.
Equipment needed for education in the latter part of the 20th century cannot be afforded. The cumulative effect of these cuts in local authority expenditure is having a demoralising effect on the teaching profession. We believe that the regulations will provide not so much an increase in choice but rather for the extension of privilege. For that reason, we oppose the scheme.

Mr. George Foulkes: If your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were present now, he might have a feeling of déjà vu. I note from the record for 27 October 1982 that I was one of the few hon. Members who spoke on that occasion. Some of the arguments that we have heard, and no doubt some of the replies that we shall hear from the Minister tonight, will be familiar.
It is appropriate that I should follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), because, although he represents the alliance, I agree with him totally. I observe that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who represents the SNP, has left the Chamber. Once the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the right hon. Gentleman have worked out who is the spokesman for education in Scotland, perhaps they will come and tell us. I am sure that I would agree with every word said on the issue.
The Labour party, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) so eloquently said, as well as the alliance and the SNP, feels that the assisted places scheme, as I said in 1982 and as the hon. Member


for Orkney and Shetland said today, is totally alien to Scottish education. It has been imported from south of the border.
At the general election, 72 per cent. of the Scottish electorate rejected the Conservative party. Yet the Conservative Government have brought forward the regulations. I question the right of the Government to bring such regulations before the House. They have no authority to do so. They are not wanted by the people of Scotland and are totally alien to Scottish educational tradition.
I use various examples again and again. This is the best one. If the people of Scotland had had the Scottish assembly for which they voted, we would not be discussing the matter. We would not be discussing the assisted places scheme or giving more money to the private sector at the same time as imposing cuts on the local authority sector. It would be quite the reverse. We would be discussing the phasing out of private schools and the development of local authority schools as community schools, providing a good positive education for what the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) described as the specially gifted and bright children. Thank goodness, most of them are wise enough not to be the sons and daughters of Tories. Most of them have been well educated in the local authority system in Scotland. It has produced the lads o' pairts who have gone on to university. The Minister is one of them. I do not know why he is so ashamed of his own education that he has to put forward this paraphernalia for giving people a so-called advantage.
We know that we are talking not about better education for specially gifted and bright people, but about snobbery and providing an education under which some of the children, particularly of the Edinburgh bourgeoisie, do not have to mix with the ordinary kids towards whom their parents have so much antipathy.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I venture to suggest that Labour Members should get their act together. At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) told us that three fifths of those on the scheme were from low-income families and were already at private schools. Now the hon. Gentleman is telling us that most of the children come from the Edinburgh bourgeoisie. There seems to be an inconsistency.

Mr. Foulkes: Not at all. I know the Edinburgh bourgeoisie only too well. I know the vehemence of those people. When I was chairman of the Lothian region education committee, and there was an attempt to integrate George Heriot's school into the local authority system, I experienced the wrath of the Edinburgh bourgeoisie, who stuck stickers on my car and shouted abuse at me. Therefore, I know them only too well. Those people are seeking that privilege and that snobbery. I have experience from the inside. As chairman of the education committee in Lothian region, it was my duty to serve on the board of Fettes college, the Merchant company and George Heriot's school. Therefore, I know what goes on and the spirit that motivates those people. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is the spirit that I have outlined.
This is what really sticks in our craw. We are putting in over £3 million to build up the private sector, which is alien to the Scottish educational tradition; but at the same time I estimate that of the £90 million that the Secretary of State announced he was cutting back, taking the

region's share and the fact that education is such a big part of the region' expenditure, about £30 million is being cut from the local authority sector. Is that not crazy? We are pumping money into a sector that is already privileged. We are subsidising not just those on the assisted places scheme, but, by boosting the number of pupils at those schools, those who are paying full fees, because we are making sure that those fees do not rise as much as they might if the kids from the assisted places scheme were not there.
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, supplies of books are being cut back in the local authority schools. There are more composite classes because the Minister is using a straight line graph. It is not exactly a straight line, but as near as it can be. He is cutting the number of teachers and other facilities as the number of pupils goes down, and we end up with composite classes in the primary schools as well as in some of the other schools that have primary departments. Bussing is also taking place as the action plan comes into effect. It will happen in Ayrshire, where the kids will be bussed from one school to the other.
The hon. Member for Stirling did not understand this. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, if the kids in the local authority schools got the same clothing grants as kids in the private schools, we might not be too worried. However, we know the difficulty that kids in local authority schools have. Those on supplementary benefit have problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) told me that those kids have great difficulty getting clothing grants, whereas those who go to private schools receive £100, in certain circumstances, without the questions that are asked of those in ordinary local authority schools.

Mr. James Hamilton: I should like to put the record straight. In Strathclyde region, parents must be on supplementary benefit or family income supplement before they are allowed the £30 clothing allowance. In my constituency, there are five composite classes in one of the primary schools.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has given valuable support to two of my paints.
It is galling for those of us who send our kids to local authority schools, who believe in them and want to do our best for them, to see the Government, who are prepared to cut everything else, including local authority schools, pouring money into private education. It is criminal in this day and age. It is doubly annoying not just for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, but for my hon. Friends the Members for Maryhill and for Motherwell, North and myself, who represent constituencies outside the main areas that benefit from the scheme, because, as I know only too well, certain areas benefit, including parts of Glasgow, but the principal beneficiary is Edinburgh. We know that by far the greatest majority of private places in private schools is in Edinburgh. That means that the ordinary ratepayer in Bothwell, Motherwell, Bellshill, Orkney and Shetland, Cumnock and Auchinleck is subsidising the education of the privileged bourgeoisie, principally in Edinburgh. It is just not on. As my hon. Friends the Members for Maryhill, Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) have said on several occasions, we shall get rid of the system. One of the first acts of the next Labour Government will be to get rid of the assisted places scheme.
We must also tackle some other anomalies and benefits that the private schools receive. Let Conservative Members not forget this. By registering as charities, private schools get rates and tax relief. A year or two ago —I am not sure whether this is still the case—private schools even got cheap butter from the butter mountain because they were charities. The local authority schools did not have that benefit.
The regulations are an impertinence. The Government have no authority, mandate or right to introduce them in Scotland. Conservative Members have no authority to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland. The increase in resources is impertinent, because local authority schools are suffering cuts, because the scheme gives privilege and priority to the east of Scotland at the expense of the west, and because the private schools are already well off compared with local authority schools. The scheme is an impertinence, and we look forward to eliminating it from the statute book at the first possible opportunity.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I wish briefly to support the regulations. I am surprised that they should be a matter of contention, not least for the Liberals who pay lip service to freedom of choice in education when it suits their electoral convenience.
In the past 10 years, Scotland has lost some outstanding educational establishments as the direct grant schools were butchered on the altar of Labour hostility to private education. Many of those were schools which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to lead into a debate on the structure of education in Scotland. That would be entirely out order. I hope that he will confine his comments to the regulations before the House.

Mr. Hirst: I have no such intention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When the selective schools in Scotland were butchered by the Labour party, we gave a commitment to introduce the assisted places scheme to provide freedom of choice for people who wished to use private education for their children but whose incomes prevented them from so doing. It is a worthwhile scheme and it is used by a number of my constituents. In my first year as a Member of Parliament I have seen how valuable the scheme has been to people whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own and whose children, but for the scheme, would have had to change schools abruptly at an important stage of their educational life. Those children would otherwise have become a charge not on the assisted places scheme but on the state scheme.

Mr. Wallace: rose——

Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that the preponderance of assistance under the scheme went to schools in the central belt. If that is so, abolition of the scheme would force many people in a comparatively small——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the abolition or establishment of the scheme. We are debating alterations to it. The House has already decided on the existence of the scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to get back to the regulations.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was important to put the record straight and to dismiss some of the fallacies expressed by the Opposition.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman referred to the benefit of the scheme when parents whose children attended fee-paying schools fell upon hard times——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is committing the very offence for which I have just chided the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst).

Mr. Hirst: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am left with the clear impression that you do not intend to allow the debate to stray from the narrow regulations before us.
I support the increase in funding for the scheme. The increase in parental contribution is extremely modest, and far less than has been suggested by the Opposition. Travel and clothing grants are also important. The wearing of uniform is generally compulsory. If the parents' income has fallen to such an extent as to justify inclusion in the scheme it is surely right that a grant should be available so that their children can be properly involved in the schools' activities. Anything else would be most unfair. I welcome the improvement in that respect.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same amount of money should be given to the state schools as is being given to the private sector through the assisted places scheme?

Mr. Hirst: That is arithmetically ridiculous logic. The amount spent on the assisted places scheme is tiny compared with the Scottish Office education budget. The hon. Gentleman will also find that there is no great difference in the cost of educating a child in the state sector and through the assisted places scheme.
Finally, I welcome the fact that redundancy payments will no longer be counted against a parent whose child would otherwise qualify for a place on the scheme. It seems especially unfair that a parent who becomes redundant should be penalised in that way, and I am glad that the Government have corrected that.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The strict guidelines within which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, wish the debate to continue make it difficult to answer some of the points made earlier. I believe that the regulations should be widely welcomed. Certainly the opposition expressed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) did not square with some of the things that the alliance said about the scheme at the time of the general election. All who are concerned about resources for education should welcome the scheme because it distinguishes between the duty of the state to provide an education and its duty to ensure that children obtain an education of a suitable standard. If it is cheaper for the state to encourage people to use the private sector, that should be encouraged, which is exactly what the scheme does.

Mr. Craigen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I will give way in a moment.
The attitude of the Opposition stems from their hatred of the very existence of a private sector in education. Indeed, they are committed to the destruction of the private sector and they oppose the scheme because it


allows people to choose that sector. They do not want people to have that choice, because they see it as a means of establishing a different standard from that of the state system.
The scheme, however, has not been so successful as we should have liked and I urge the Government to consider ways of extending it. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, for instance, said that there was little opportunity for people in rural areas such as his to benefit from the scheme. Of course, we do not hear him complain when his area receives subsidies for activities which do not apply in the central belt. Nevertheless, we might consider using the extra resources to enable people in rural areas to keep small rural schools going on a fee-paying basis. There are all kinds of possibilities. The scheme offers choice. It offers children from poorer backgrounds an alternative to the state system, although it is a poorer alternative than the direct grant system destroyed by the Labour party.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are talking about Scotland, which never had a direct grant system but only a grant-aided system, which is rather different?

Mr. Forsyth: I take the point, although both systems were based on the principle of allowing children from poorer backgrounds the opportunity of a private education suited to their needs. The scheme offers a poorer alternative, but it is viable.
I hope that the Government will consider whether it is possible to extend the scheme to rural areas and to children who are not only gifted academically, but who have particular skills such as music, or who are handicapped in some way. That would enhance the scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): In replying to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I speak as a product of Bell Baxter high school to a product of Haberdashers Aske's

Mr. Foulkes: And Keith grammar school.

Mr. Stewart: I note that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley moved from the local authority sector to the private sector. I do not know whether he received an assisted place. I am proud of my education, but we must have the freedom of choice. Both the public and private sectors of education have complementary roles in Scotland.
My hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) have described the motivation of Opposition Members in tabling tonight's prayer. The assisted places scheme has been successful. It has given a wider parental choice in the private sector to parallel that in the local authority sector.
One of the key criticisms of the scheme, as amended by the regulations, is based upon élitism and privilege. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley concentrated on that. He will recognise that the scheme covers a wide range of schools. It covers, for example, schools with a long tradition, such as that attended by the Shadow Secretary of State, Glasgow academy which also

enjoyed the benefit of having the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) as a teacher. These schools have religious or philosophical specialties.

Mr. Craigen: I do not need to wear sackcloth and ashes. Will the Minister deal with the four main points that I made?

Mr. Stewart: I shall come to those matters. I am trying to answer some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
The hon. Gentleman criticised privilege. The suggestion that the scheme subsidises pupils from well-off families is unfounded. The 1983–84 figures show that over 900 pupils, or 51 per cent. of all pupils participating in this scheme, receive full remission of fees because their parents have a relevant income of £5,622 per annum or less. A further 10 per cent. have family incomes between £5,623 and £6,500 per annum, and 12 per cent. between £6,501 and £7,500. Families with incomes on that scale can hardly be claimed to be a privileged and well-off elite.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister, in his prepared text, is answering questions that were not asked. I said that people send their children to such schools for reasons of snobbery rather than education.

Mr. Stewart: That is rubbish. Parents send their children to particular schools because they think that that is good for their children's education.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme is morally more defensible than the hypocrisy of Lefties who use their purchasing power or incomes to buy houses in the catchment area of the more desirable schools which allow them——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that you wish me to follow that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However valid it is, it is not related to the regulations. Hon. Members should recognise that the majority of parents of independent school pupils pay rates and taxes like anyone else.
Hon. Members talked about the financial implications of the scheme. The Government's financial contribution to independent schools is small compared with overall education provision in Scotland. The private sector accounts for about 3·5 per cent. of the total school population, yet total grants under the assisted places scheme in the current year will amount to less than 0·5 per cent. of total expenditure on school education.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked about relative costs. The assisted places scheme is restricted to secondary education and when the average assistance towards fees per pupil is compared with the average expenditure per pupil in secondary education in the public sector there is little difference between the figures. In 1982–83, the last year for which figures are available, expenditure per secondary pupil in the public sector was about £1,270. That is in line with the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave for Strathclyde. In the same year the average assistance towards tuition fees under the assisted places scheme was £1,100. That puts the criticisms in context.
The hon. Members for Maryhill, for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about funding. They maintained that the regulations involve an increase in public expenditure on private education. That is not so. The scheme is funded


from the progressive transfer over a five-year period, ending in 1986, of the maintenance grants previously paid to grant-aided secondary schools. No increase in direct financial support to the independent sector in real terms has taken place since the scheme was introduced. That is because the previous scheme of assistance is being phased out. There is a transfer between the two schemes.
The hon. Member for Maryhill asked me about provisions for school uniforms under the scheme. The essence of arrangements for all incidental expenses under the regulations is that pupils are not prevented from receiving the full benefits of an assisted place simply because they cannot afford to provide compulsory items such as a school blazer. The position in the education authority sector is different and so not comparable.
The basic supplementary benefit allowance contains an element for renewal of clothing from which parents should be able to provide clothing. However, when an education authority considers that a pupil is prevented by the inadequacy of his clothing from taking advantage of the education provided, it has a duty to make a clothing grant. The criteria used by authorities to establish a clothing need and the amount of grant are for its discretion. In addition to the large amount of central Government support paid though supplementary benefit and single payments by the DHSS in cases of exceptional need, authorities in Scotland made grants of about £2·5 million in 1982–83.

Mr. Craigen: Is the Minister concerned about the invidious pressure facing local authorities? Will he seriously consider rate support grant for authorities having to meet clothing requirements?

Mr. Stewart: Local authorities have discretion in this matter. Clothing grants paid out under the assisted places scheme amounted to only £30,000 in 1982–83.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the number of pupils who had previously attended fee-paying schools. In 1981–82, the first year of the scheme, 72 per cent. of the 776 pupils were from fee-paying schools. That proportion was expected to decrease as the scheme developed, and it has done so. In 1983–84, of more than 1,000 pupils, 59 per cent. were previously at fee-paying schools.
The hon. Member for Maryhill questioned the value for money for the Scottish Office. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have knowledge of participating schools, based both on documentation and personal visits. The schools are subject to inspection in the same way as are all other schools.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about the geographical distribution of recipients. Applications are confidential between the applicant and the participating school. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not involved in the award of places and, therefore, information is not available. The hon. Gentleman also asked about increases in fees. It is usual

for fees to be increased annually, and my right hon. Friend considers the proposals as they arise. If it is proposed to increase fees more often, he takes account of any previous increases.
Hon. Members have criticised the regulations in the context of public expenditure. As I have already emphasised, they represent a tiny percentage of the total public expenditure in Scotland. We must view those criticisms against the background that the amount spent per secondary pupil in Scotland is higher in real terms than at any time previously, and against the background of a planned percentage increase of 5·5 per cent. in education expenditure to 1986–87 compared with the projected 5·5 per cent. fall in pupil numbers during the same period.
The basic criticisms about the assisted places scheme and the regulations are ideological. It is a widely accepted scheme and a sensible and cost-effective method of extending parental choice. The regulations are not controversial and, therefore, I ask the House to reject the Opposition's prayer.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS

That the draft Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER PROTECTION

That the draft Motor Vehicles Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cheese, Fish, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Meat and Poultry) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

That the draft Comptroller and Auditor General (Examination of Accounts) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Dispute

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

Mr. Peter Hardy: Little attention is given to many Adjournment debates; often they are of importance only to a single individual or a particular locality. On this occasion, while the matters to which I shall refer certainly have considerable relevance to my constituency, they are of more extensive interest and, perhaps, of a gravity that may be—and should be—of considerable national significance.
To some extent, the debate relates to the position and role of an hon. Member. Current fashion may suggest that the Executive has become more willing to disregard the representations of an individual Member. The conduct of the Home Secretary and his colleagues during recent months has revealed disdain—a disdain that has been a response not only to my representations but to those of a number of my colleagues who have made serious endeavours on behalf of what they and I believe to be a sane course in the interests of those whom we represent. That disdain during the past few months has approached serious negligence.
The present coal strike is serious. It could have been avoided, as could have been the bitterness that has developed in recent months. My colleagues and I thought to warn the Government of that — indeed, I did so during a debate on the coal industry last December. Our assessment has proved more than justified.
Then came the decision to cease production at Cortonwood colliery in my constituency. That brought out the Yorkshire coalfield in pledged, solid and predictable response. On Friday 9 March I addressed a large number of my constituents in the parish hall at Brampton Bierlow, close to Cortonwood colliery. I expressed sympathy with them and I shared their concern, but I urged them to ensure that their activities during the strike were entirely peaceful. The Cortonwood miners accepted that advice, they conducted themselves responsibly and they prepared a carefully presented leaflet that dealt with the facts—with no sedition and no call to arms; it was merely an argument. They decided to take that leaflet to other people in the mining industry who were still working.
For the first few days they were able to do that, but then came the day when they were prevented from handing out leaflets that presented a fair case. On 21 March I wrote what I believed to be a responsible and serious letter to the Home Secretary. It described how 12 Cortonwood miners were not allowed to give out leaflets at the three entrances to the Silverhills colliery near Mansfield. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) checked the facts, and I do not think that the Minister would disagree with them. The miners were prevented from handing out a responsible leaflet. They were told that they had to occupy a stretch of pavement and that if they stepped off the pavement they would be arrested. They were told that if they spoke to a Nottinghamshire miner they would be arrested. They were told that if they gave out their responsible leaflet they would be arrested.
There have been a number of decisions of that kind and they have bred the anger and bitterness in the coalfields. That sort of refusal accelerated trouble, to the point when, the day after I wrote to the Home Secretary, a young miner

in my constituency, a decent lad named Sean Webster, was arrested when walking away from the picket line, having decided that he had been on the line for long enough. When he asked what the charge would be, he was told, "For walking on the grass." His companion said, "I have not walked on any grass. What would the charge be against me?" He was told, "You could be arrested for walking on a crack in the pavement."
We are expected to urge our constituents to remain restrained. We have tried to do that, and will continue to do so, but anger has been caused by the sort of events that I have described and it is time that the Home Secretary began to perceive what is being felt. It was foolish of the Home Secretary to announce that all complaints against the police were lies or smears. That caused great difficulty. The Home Secretary may have been misreported; suffice it to say that in March he was reported as having made that statement.
It was obvious that the idea of road blocks—they stopped miners but they also held up others who had nothing to do with the mining industry—on the border between Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire was bound to cause resentment. I urged in one of my several letters to the Home Secretary that he needed to defuse the situation and establish an impartial inquiry. I have maintained that view, which is incorporated in a motion which is now attracting the support of many hon. Members.
Since I wrote that letter of 21 March events have deteriorated. Many grim weeks have passed and, as was suggested at Question Time today, we may have spent on the coal strike £10 billion, money which this country could have used in better ways. The weeks have indeed been grim. I hoped, as I wrote to the Home Secretary in serious terms, that he would show a similar serious intent. I continue to seek his consideration as the result of a number of serious incidents affecting my constituent.
I am aware of the procedure for making complaints against the police. On a few occasions when I have notified the chief constable of south Yorkshire over certain incidents, I have received a swift response, and some of my constituents have expressed themselves as satisfied. I only wish that the Home Office had responded with anything like the despatch demonstrated by our local police.
Unfortunately, no response was forthcoming from the Department. More weeks passed, the situation deteriorated and the bitterness became even more intense. On 14 June I tabled several parliamentary questions to the Home Secretary for answer on 21 June—three calendar months after my first letter—to ask when I would be receiving replies to that and other letters that I had sent him. The reply was largely to the effect that he had referred the matters to the chief constable of Nottinghamshire.
My letter of 21 March had been referred to the chief constable. On 28 June I asked in another parliamentary question on what date the Home Secretary had referred my letter of 21 March to the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, and I was told in reply that it had been referred on 18 June. That was almost 13 weeks later. I hope that we never introduce the principle of surcharge which applies in local government to the central Administration of this country. If this dispute has cost £10 billion, it is clear that 13 weeks' delay of that sort demonstrates something shameful.
I have written other letters to the Home Secretary, and the response to all of them has not been good enough. Given the events of the last three months, that slow and inadequate response provides me with a reason for suggesting that there must be an impartial and serious inquiry into the dispute.
I propose to table a question later today asking how many people were arrested in the Brixton riots and how many have been arrested since the beginning of this strike in March. Brixton is only a stone's throw from this House. Many of my hon. Friends and I live even less than a stone's throw from where the dispute is taking place. Although the main areas of dispute may be 100 or 200 miles from this place, these matters are sufficiently serious to justify deliberate attention.
I am the last person to complain about the police, who have a job to do. Most police officers wish to do that job well. The negligence which has been displayed in the last three months and the insensitivity which has been shown to the mining areas—as we have seen the miners' strike policed from some corridor in Whitehall—has made the policing in many coalfield areas perilous. I trust that in future we shall see a more careful, intelligent and sensitive response than has been the case so far.
At Question Time last Thursday, the Home Secretary said that if only the miners had picketed in the small numbers which the law allowed things would have been better.

Mr. Stan Crowther: The civil and criminal law does not place any restriction on the number of pickets. There is merely a code of practice suggesting that six is a reasonable number, but it is not an offence for more than six pickets to be on duty at any one time.

Mr. Hardy: I accept that. My hon. Friend and I have discussed these serious matters on a number of occasions. Whatever the legal position may be, the Home Secretary said on Thursday that if the number of pickets at each place had been reduced to six neither policemen nor anybody else would have been injured. I agree to a large extent with the Home Secretary in that. What a dreadful pity that heed was not paid to the suggestion which some of us made, that the approach of the Cottonwood miners early in March should have been encouraged instead of being stopped. What a shame that the letter which I sent to the Home Secretary on this subject on 21 March did not secure his attention and understanding. If he had applied intelligence to the matter, fewer police and pickets would have been injured and much less money need have been spent.
We have watched the situation deteriorate as the Government have seemed more concerned to win the battle of public support. The miners inflicted a defeat on the Government in 1972. That strike was avoidable. Those close to the industry know that if 50p a week more had been offered the 1972 strike would not have taken place. My hon. Friends with experience of the mining industry know that if the Government had not decided to try to win some mythical battle of public opinion in 1974, and defeat the miners by a specious wage offer designed to appeal to the public, that strike would not have happened. This strike need not have happened, and all that has happened since March might have been avoided if more intelligence had been used.
I wrote a number of other letters. One concerned a constituent of mine, whom I know well. He is an entirely

responsible individual. He came to my house immediately after his experience and he wrote to me soon after that. I passed his letter immediately to the Home Secretary, because I believed that it presented a serious problem. My constituent was less concerned about taking the matter through the various procedures of police investigation than that this incident should receive serious political consideration. This is what part of my constituent's letter says:
We proceeded North at a pace of 10 to 20 miles per hour, on reaching a distance of approximately ½ mile from the Barlborough junction, the cars came to a halt. We stood on the motorway approximately 15 minutes. I was positioned in the centre lane third vehicle from the front, when 15 to 20 police arrived on foot from the direction of Barlborough junction. They proceeded to smash the offside window and windscreen of the car in front of me, and to my left in the nearside lane, they dragged the occupants out and the one I saw was dragged towards the hard shoulder, and 5 policemen proceeded to assault this man with truncheons and boots. I was greatly disturbed to see such a thing happen in this country. The whole thing was over in 3 minutes. We were told to proceed which I did, and returned back to Barnburgh Colliery.
My constituent did not make this complaint to embarrass the police, but because he was disturbed to see that happen in this country. His letter, dated 30 March, I sent to the Home Secretary on 3 April. I had to ask questions in the House to find out what happened to my letter.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: En the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, has the individual to whom he is referring formally complained about the police behaviour?

Mr. Hardy: I do not know the name of the individual who was injured. I suspect that the solicitors of the NUM will be more competent to pursue the case than I am. I have read that letter to the House not to attack the police or to take sides in a matter that should be before the courts but because that incident, as Mr. Sanderson who wrote that letter believes, should be a matter for political consideration at the highest levels rather than being lost in the labyrinth of the necessary police complaints procedure.
More recently has come another letter and a visit to my surgery the other day that has considerably upset me. A young man, a colliery electrician, slight in build and timid in disposition, decided that he should go picketing as well. At approximately 11.45 am on Monday 9 April, he was standing at the roadside and
cordially speaking to a police sergeant when the crowd of people 200 strong pushed from the back. The sheer weight of numbers pushed me through the police, and my glasses fell off. The sergeant I had been speaking to ran to the edge of the road where I had fallen and stopped a car coming towards me. He then lifted me to my feet and asked if I was OK. I replied to him 'Yes I'm OK' and bent down to pick up my glasses. As I did this 2 or 3 Metropolitan police officers ran up, punched and arrested me. I told them that I was just picking up my glasses. The met officer looked down saw my glasses, and stamped on them—breaking them—and I have not seen them since.
I was then man-handled across the road and taken to a police van and transported to Mansfield Police station locked up for 10 hours put before a magistrate and charged with threatening behaviour. I must add that the Mansfield police were very. courteous and dealt with me very well and were astonished at what had happened".
There is some confusion about the officer who arrested my constituent, Mr. Lockwood. At any rate, he was charged with threatening behaviour and brought to the court in May and given bail on the sort of conditions that seem, to many of our constituents, to be designed to prevent them from


even contacting their Member of Parliament for advice. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and I, and other hon. Members, have made representations about that, and bail conditions were slightly amended the following month.
The following month my constituent again appeared and was granted bail. This month he has been back to court. This time he was charged not only with threatening behaviour but also with assaulting police officers. If the Minister could have been with Mt. Lockwood in my surgery the other day, he would have realised how sad and how shocking it was that such a different charge was made against him. I should like the Minister to meet Mr. Lockwood. Then he would understand why such a charge is almost contemptible.
I suggested in a letter to the Home Office the other day that the charge was altered after I had complained, but I am assured that, since my letter to the chief constable did not go to him until 18 June, that cannot be so because it was decided to change the charge before that date. That being so, the complaint that my letter represents is regarded as irrelevant. However, I hope that the legal advice and assistance that Mr. Lockwood will receive ensures that justice is done in the courts. It is a pity, perhaps, that it has not been done before.
I realise that such places as Brampton, Breilow, Thrybergh, Sunnyside and Swinton in south Yorkshire are very far from Whitehall corridors. But our people are citizens as well. The Minister must understand that over the past few years there has been a great deal of effort in such places in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham to build good police-public relationships. Individual officers have put a lot of effort into that. But a great deal of it is not merely imperilled but undoubtedly on a temporary basis brought to ruin, and I feel great distress and considerable frustration. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and I have been involved in the divisional community-police liaison committee. We have sought to assist its development with a considerable amount of diligence and energy. I wonder whether the whole of that effort on our part and that of other well-meaning citizens will ever be justified.
My experience of delay is quite incredible but, as I say, it is not unusual. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who cannot be here for this debate, has asked me to refer to questions that he sent to the Home Secretary on 26 March and 2 April. He had to ask a question in the House on 25 June to discover why the Home Secretary had not replied. Hon. Members with vast experience in the coal industry and other hon. Members who have long represented mining communities are frustrated and angry and understand the bitterness which has been bred in our constituents. If the Minister considers that, he may begin to understand why delay by the Home Office has been so embittering. Judging from ministerial responses at Question Time last Thursday, there is little evidence that Ministers have given any thought to our letters and the very serious words that they contain or that they have given any credence to the fact that some of my hon. Friends and I might be qualified to offer comment and suggestions. We have not had any sensible response.
Since our constituents are aware of our representations and realise that we have had no replies to them, the Home

Secretary and his colleagues have added to the bitterness and contributed to the grave problems affecting society in many parts of these islands.
I suggest to the Minister of State that, while we were not afforded the courtesy of a ministerial approach through many grim and grave weeks and months, there is now an opportunity for a remedy to be put into effect. That is why I suggest that the Home Secretary and his colleagues should recognise that the terms of the motion that I tabled last Thursday are very serious. I believe that an inquiry of the type that I propose is necessary. If an inquiry is held, I trust that it will also investigate the awful delay that my hon. Friends and I have experienced this year. It is a degree of delay, a degree of disdain and a degree of contempt and arrogance which the House and the country cannot afford.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has been in this House almost as long as I have. He and I are friends. I take seriously what he has said tonight, and I hope very much that if there are any cases where there is prima facie evidence of the police using excessive force the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to ensure that charges are brought. The courts will then determine the facts, and the proper verdict will be reached. That is the proper way to proceed. The hon. Gentleman, who has done much for relations between the police and the public in his area, must agree with me about that.
During the past tragic weeks, I have travelled to the coal mining areas on several occasions. I was born in a coal mining area. I have seen something — though perhaps not enough—of the picketing and the police response. Hon. Members on both sides of the House deeply regret what has happened, but no one regrets it more than the ordinary men and women of the police service themselves. I know of no police officer who has any desire to put on a plastic helmet and flameproof overalls—let alone to be pelted with bricks and bottles or to be involved in baton charges or the use of police horses.
However, the police have a job to do. If thousands of violent men, whatever their purpose or origins, seek by physical violence to prevent other citizens from going to work in peace — aided and abetted by hundreds of politically motivated hangers on—it is the duty of the police to protect the civil rights of anyone who is the target of such criminal attacks. And the police are bound to respond with whatever level of force is required to uphold the law. If the law can be brushed aside and violence can prevail, there is no civil liberty for anyone. Democracy is at risk. Liberty slides into anarchy.
The police are not, of course, entitled to over-react. If they use excessive force, they must answer to the criminal law, to which they are just as answerable as any picket. They are also responsible to the police complaints system and to their own disciplinary code. However, the world's least violent and most accountable police service is entitled to feel angry when its members are subjected to a barrage of bricks and bottles simply because they are doing their duty in upholding the Queen's peace. Members of the police service are even more entitled to resent being likened to the Gestapo and compared with the Polish or


South African police—especially when the author of such mendacities is a man who denies to his own union members the right to a secret ballot.
The machinery available to those who wish to complain against the police is well known. Whether or not it needs to be reformed is a matter for debate in proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. But if a citizen has a complaint, he has a duty to bring the matter to the notice of the local police. If it is well founded, it will be investigated; and, if there is sufficient evidence, the policeman concerned will be charged. Alternatively, the matter can be dealt with under the complaints system, which now has a strong independent element. Complaints can also be dealt with by the criminal or civil courts, through the local police authority or, ultimately, the Home Secretary. There are in fact five or six ways in which complaints against the police can be pursued.
I wish to identify four general complaints and to dispose of them. The first is that the police in south Yorkshire are enforcing a Tory Government's trade union laws. There is no truth in that allegation. The police have nothing to do with the Government's trade union laws. They are dealing with breaches of the criminal law, as they should.
The second complaint is that the police are engaged in paramilitary policing. Anyone who believes that should look at what happens in other countries where police have to deal with violence. They use water cannon, as in Switzerland and Japan; they use armoured fighting vehicles, as in Germany and France; they use riot guns and gas, as in the United States; they even use heavy weapons, as in the peace-loving democracies of eastern Europe. By contrast, the British police have placed their own bodies between the pickets and those who wish to go to work in peace. As a consequence, the police have suffered the most serious injuries. I know, too, from having discussed the matter with officers on the spot, that the police always seek to react with the minimum, not the maximum, force.
The third charge made against the police is that they are, as one hon. Member has claimed, systematically destroying civil liberties by tapping miners' telephones, imposing no-go areas, invading miners' homes and terrorising their families. No evidence to support this has been produced in the House, and when I have asked hon. Members for it they have ducked the question. If there is such evidence, let the inquiry take place in the courts, but in truth there is no evidence of the police systematically destroying civil liberties.
The fourth charge is that our police are engaged in national policing. That charge is based on the notion that the existence of the national reporting centre and the coordination of mutual aid by the current president of the Association of Chief Police Officers have turned our police into a national force. There is no basis for this charge. It is not true. If we did not have mutual aid, with the command being retained in each individual force, south Yorkshire—or any other area—would simply be overwhelmed because it does not have and could not afford the many more men that it would have to recruit to deal with any contingency.

Mr. Max Madden: To which Minister is the head of the national reporting centre responsible?

Mr. Griffiths: He is not responsible to any Minister. We do not have police Ministers, and I hope that we never shall. If the Home Secretary broke the law, an ordinary constable could arrest him, and no doubt would do so.
The national reporting centre, which was set up under the previous Labour Government—if any Government were involved—is a simple mechanism for the exchange of requests for help. I invite the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) to go and see it. It is a coordinating arrangement so that information is provided by one force to another. And all mutual aid groups come under the local command of the chief officer of the receiving force concerned.
The hon. Member for Wentworth asks for an inquiry. I believe that there will be an inquiry into the way in which violence has been met during the recent troubles in the coal industry. It will take place in the House when we debate, during the next year, the public order legislation that lies ahead of us. There is bound to be an inquiry then. But the specific matters into which the hon. Gentleman seeks an inquiry tonight should be dealt with in the courts. The courts of law are the best place for that, and I hope that he will accept it.

Mr. Martin Redmond: There is a good expression to describe the speech made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I do not know whether it is a parliamentary expression, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was certainly a load of bullshit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is certainly not a parliamentary expression.

Mr. Redmond: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman shed a lot of crocodile tears, but despite all that he did not support the request for an investigation. That does not surprise me. As a new Member of Parliament, I have been appalled by the sniggering and sneering of Conservative Members whenever we ask any question about the mining dispute. We have asked numerous questions, highlighting certain activities by the police, but they have met with no response but with laughter and sniggering. I am appalled.
If there is nothing to hide, the Minister will no doubt agree to an investigation. If he adopts the other course of action, he will be condoning what is happening in the coalfields. Hon. Members have mentioned South Africa, but Conservative Members should try travelling to this House from Doncaster. They will find that on certain days police checkpoints will stop them going about their lawful business. If that is not a matter of concern to the Minister, he should say so now.
I and other hon. Members went into Nottingham at the request of the Yorkshire area of the NUM because of allegations that were made. At one pit, no peaceful picketing was allowed. The police had herded about 50 lads to the other side of the road. According to the evidence, those lads had not been able to get near the entrance. We said that six of them would be sufficient to picket the lads going into work at that pit and that the rest would go home. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) will confirm that after five minutes it was then agreed that those six pickets could go across and peacefully picket. But then one of the thugs from down south—I cannot call him a police officer,


because he was a thug—came across and would not allow anyone to picket. Is it any wonder that people get riled?
It is asked why people do not complain about what happens. Often, the police do not wear identity numbers and have obviously removed them from their clothing. If a lad is manhandled by the police, his first concern is to protect himself. If he is guarding his head with his arms and hands against truncheon blows, the last thing that he will think of is to get the policeman's number. There are numerous cases of lads being injured but finding it impossible to identify the policeman concerned. That is why an investigation is important.
People who are charged with obstruction and are remanded on bail appear in court several weeks later—a similar delay as when hon. Members write asking for information. One of my constituents, Mr. Henderson, was charged with obstruction—but what happened when he appeared in front of the magistrates to ask, through a solicitor, for unconditional bail? Apparently he had a criminal record. It consisted of a six months jail sentence for actual bodily harm, a three months' sentence for theft, a three months' sentence for criminal damage, a supposed court appearance for excess alcohol in his blood —presumably drunk and disorderly — and a court appearance for breach of the peace.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to Mr. Henderson, whom I also know. I share my hon. Friend's view. When Mr. Henderson listened to that bogus record, one of my constituents, Mr. Kevin Heavey, went to court and discovered that he had a criminal record that showed that he had served 18 months in prison for armed robbery and had other convictions for theft. There is no evidence of Mr. Heavey having any criminal record. I know him quite well as he lives round the corner from my home in Wath upon Dearne.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. There is a conveyor belt system. There is all sorts of conniving to stop our lads getting unconditional bail. If the Minister is sincere and wants to uphold the law, he should agree to the request for an investigation.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I have always regarded the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) as one of the most responsible and respected Members of the House. I do not doubt that he is right when he says that, in general, he is one of the last people who would wish to attack the police. I do not doubt that, in principle, he is one of those members of the Labour party who believe in the maintenance of law and order and a civilised society. However, although he might say that he wants law and order to be maintained, any debate such as this and any speech such as he made is bound to be taken as a general criticism of 
police behaviour during the miners' strike.
The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that he quoted examples of what he claimed was police over-reaction. He gave his credence to complaints about police behaviour and he criticised the police in a way that suggested and created the idea that the violence that we have seen has

been caused by the police rather than, as is the case, by violence on the picket lines to which the police are bound to react.

Mr. Hardy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that I sent letters describing what I read to the House today to Ministers three months ago, because I recognised that those events were serious. I believed that the problem should be solved and that Home Office Ministers bore a heavy responsibility that they needed to begin to exercise.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with the matter of the delay, if there has been one. That is a matter for him to consider.
The tone of the speeches of the hon. Members for Wentworth and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) amounted to a clear attack on the police. Their remarks were a travesty of what has happened. The hon. Member for Don Valley talked about "our lads" being injured, but he did not say a word about the number of policemen being injured. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on this question: is it not an extraordinary fact that, if all this violence is created by the police, as the hon. Gentleman wishes us to believe, it is always the police who appear to have the greatest number of injuries at the end of the day? The police, whose task on behalf of society is to maintain law and order, are using the force they need to use—I believe no more than they feel is necessary—to ensure that their duty is done.

Mr. Redmond: I shall match my record before the strike started with that of any other hon. Member on the way in which we have attempted to bring about great cooperation between the police and the general public. I shall provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with evidence of that co-operation after the debate, if he wishes. Numerous injuries are inflicted on the miners, but the miners are a breed of men who do not go running and crying.

Mr. Carlisle: I repeat a great many more policemen than others involved appear to have been injured. That is an extraordinary fact in view of the hon. Gentleman's statement about the violence coming from the police side.
If allegations have been made in certain places mentioned by the hon. Member for Wentworth that the police have acted in that way, there is a recognised complaints procedure. That procedure is supported by both sides of the House, and it includes an independent element to which people can complain. There is no such complaints procedure for those who have been the victims of violence, threats, terrorism or intimidation from those on the picket line. There is no method by which people can complain that their property has been damaged because of the action of those who support the miners on strike. I remind the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that people may use civil procedures. If people claim that they have been beaten up, they are free to sue the police in the civil courts. How many complaints have there been? How many actions have been taken in that way?
We have heard a totally one-sided description from the Opposition of what is happening. The police are doing not only their duty but what is required for society. They are ensuring that freedom is maintained by making sure that those who wish to work are able to get to work and are free


to work. By their actions, the police are upholding the values of a civilised society. It is those values, freedoms and rights that are under attack by some of the militants among the striking miners. The right to work is a fundamental right. The freedom of an individual to choose not to join a strike is just as important as his right to choose to join a strike. The freedom of those who wish to work in the mines must be preserved, and their ability to do that must be preserved. Only the existence of an adequate police force has enabled them to achieve that right.
Complaints have been made about the numbers of police that have been seen at some of the mines. The numbers are those required to deal with the threat of violence which otherwise exists. The interesting point is that, thanks to the police force, that vital freedom to work, and that additional right to keep open other industries, has been preserved against violent attack by some of the people on the picket lines.
If the right hon. Member for Gorton speaks in the debate, perhaps he will tell us what he has to say about the reports that we have heard today of windows being smashed by boulders being thrown at colliery buildings. Is that the sort of violence, which is supported by Mr. Scargill and Mr. McGahey and which his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition condones when he speaks on the platform alongside Mr. Scargill, that the right hon. Member for Gorton condones? We are seeing violence, intimidation and attacks on property of a nature that we have not seen before and which I hope we shall not see again. The only people who can preserve the freedom of individuals not to suffer from that intimidation, those threats and attempts to terrorise are members of an adequate police force.
Allowing that there is a complaints procedure and the right of any individual to sue the police authority if he believes that he has been damaged by police action, I do not believe that there is any need or justification for a Government inquiry. Whatever the hon. Member for Wentworth may say, we know that a Government inquiry lends support to the suggestion that police behaviour has been improper and wrong. I do not believe that to be so.
I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about delay. One of the worrying aspects of the matter is the delay in bringing cases before the courts. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, is the right place for these matters to be decided. I ask my right hon. Friend what efforts the Government are making to persuade—that is all that they can do—the courts in the area to try to speed up the hearing of some of the many cases before them. It is a matter of anxiety that only 10 per cent., or less, of the cases brought have so far been dealt with by the courts. I say that irrespective of the outcome of those cases. Justice must be seen to be done, and done speedily.
Many people outside the House are worried. They see cases of violence on the television during the evening. They hear that so many arrests have been made, but they never hear that those cases have come before the court. It is not adequate that those matters should be dealt with three or six months later. I know that it is a matter not for the Government, but for the courts. The local courts should see that cases are disposed of quickly in the interests of the parties so that allegations and counter-allegations can be properly investigated.
One must, of course, regret that the strike has gone on for this length of time. But one must regret much more the attitude of Mr. Scargill, on television, on Channel 4, when he said of the miners:
we have no intention of abiding by laws, be they civil or criminal, which restrict our ability as a trade union to fight for the rights of our members".
That is a direct attack on parliamentary democracy and on the rule of law, and a direct attack on the basis of our freedoms. That is the sort of direct attack that neither side of this House can afford to allow to succeed. We have to look to the police to see that it does not.

Mr. Alec Woodall: The whole House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for initiating the debate. I congratulate him and thank him for his efforts.
When I entered the Chamber to try to take part in the debate I was determined to stick to the motion on the Order Paper—
the subject of correspondence with the Home Office regarding policing of the miners' dispute".
Ever since the dispute started, the Home Secretary has consistently ignored letters and anything that has been said to him about police activities and what has been happening on the picket lines. He appears to have adopted the first part of the Yorkshireman's motto—
Hear all, see all, say nowt'.
We are not getting a dicky bird from the Home Office. My hon. Friend and I and others have sent letters to him but there has been no reply from the Home Office. I have records of letters which have been sent since last March.
I should like to tell the House about some of the events which took place in the third week of March, the third week of the dispute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) and myself, after we had received complaints from Yorkshire about the attitude of the police on the Nottinghamshire picket lines —to which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) referred—sought a meeting with the Home Secretary. I give credit where it is due. The Home Secretary immediately agreed to meet us. He gave us 20 minutes. I am convinced that, if it had not been for my right hon. Friend, I would still have been waiting to see the Home Secretary. It appears that anyone with "r h" in front of his name carries a bit of weight.
We met the Home Secretary for 20 minutes. We outlined to him what we had been told was happening to Yorkshiremen going on to the picket lines in Nottinghamshire. The Home Secretary looked at us and smiled, as he usually does. He nodded and said, "It is not a matter for me. I must leave the matter in the hands of the police." He has been doing that ever since. He does not give a damn. There have already been three deaths on the picket lines, apart from the 4,000 injuries to police and miners. He does not seem to bother.
What perturbs me is not so much that the Home Secretary ignores my letters but that he ignores letters from people in positions of responsibility. I have here a letter dated 28 June 1984 which was sent to the Home Secretary by the chairman and deputy chairman of the police authority of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council. I should like to read two passages from it. In the fourth paragraph they say:
There is evidence which we believe shows that the wider interests of the community are being neglected and undermined


by disproportionate attention to one manifestation of a temporary civil disorder. (It may be that the very size of the police involvement is not helping in the disorder). In certain parts of the country there is what some describe as a state of civil war, which amongst other effects is seriously damaging present and future police-community confidence, and this in areas far removed from the immediate point of conflict.
In the next paragraph, the chairman and deputy chairman say:
We see, as a matter of grave urgency, a need to restore the Queen's peace and goodwill between the Police and the other parties concerned who are deeply committed in this dispute.
That letter has still not been acknowledged. It is from two responsible county councillors, Ron Darrington, chairman, and Harold Best, deputy chairman, of the police authority of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council. They have not even received a card acknowledging receipt of their letter.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned four things and in his intervention just now referred to the bottles and stones that have been thrown at the police, and asked what they were to do about it. What happened last week in my constituency leaves a lot to be desired from the police. No sticks, stones, or bottles were thrown, but the police went to question a man. What happened there was diabolical. I interviewed five of my constituents a week ago yesterday morning. They had all been at the receiving end of the police special action group.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the accusation of paramilitary tactics by the police, which he did not try to deny. He just went on to mention what had happened in other countries. Let me tell him what happened to Mr. Alan Hurst, in this country. He was walking home in Fitzwilliam a week last Monday night. He saw a disturbance, in which a young man was having his head bashed on the pavement by police. He went up to them and recognised the young man as his own nephew. After they had given the nephew's head several bangs on the pavement, Mr. Hurst said, "Hold on a bit. You have given him enough. Just stop it, will you?" The next thing, he was grabbed and handcuffed to a lamp post.
The police continued to knock his nephew about. When they had finished with his nephew, they set about him. A week yesterday morning, Mr. Hurst took off his shirt to let me have a look at his back. It was like the back of a zebra. He is an innocent, 43-year-old, law-abiding citizen, who was just going home. He tried to admonish the police and tell them that he thought they were doing wrong.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman put the evidence before the police complaints board, and if not, why not?

Mr. Woodall: The evidence has been given to it. I had correspondence this morning from the deputy chief constable of West Yorkshire metropolitan police. He has written to Mr. Alan Hurst, and to the others involved. I went to see the chief constable last Monday. All those involved have been invited to make their statements to a special police—I stress "police"—inquiry.
I am satisfied with that as far as it goes, until I see the end product of the inquiry. If the outcome is not suitable, I shall support, as I do now, the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth that an inquiry should be held. The inquiry should not be held into the police — the

motion is not about their activities, as they are bound to be involved—but about our concern at what they are not doing. They do not give a damn. It is about time that the Home Secretary pulled his finger out.
I want to mention Cortonwood. I wanted to stick to the wording of the Adjournment motion, but it is difficult in this situation. My hon. Friend was right. The dispute started last November with an overtime ban. The union policy, declared by Mr. Arthur Scargill, was specific. He wanted an overtime ban, and nothing more. The ban started on 1 November last year and went on until March this year, when the Cortonwood colliery closure was engineered by Her Majesty's Government, to cause a strike. The Government caused the strike, not the miners.
Eighty four per cent of Yorkshire miners voted in 1981 for the motion,
 Are you in favour of taking strike action if any colliery is closed other than by means of seam exhaustion?
There was not seam exhaustion at Cortonwood. Men had just been transferred there from nearby Elsecar colliery to keep Cortonwood going for the next five years. There is still 1 million tonnes of good coking coal avaialble at Cortonwood. Men from Elsecar were promised work for the next five years.
Why, then, ignoring the new procedure, did the National Coal Board announce the closure of Cortonwood, without any consultation whatsoever? It was engineered. The Government wanted a showdown. They have got it. Now that they have the result of the showdown, they do not like it. They see all, they hear all, and they sit there and say nowt. It is about time that they got their finger out.
I appeal to the Home Secretary to answer the letters and listen to the advice that has been given to him and the pleas that are being made, particularly by Opposition Members, and to intervene, because the damage has been done. I am law-abiding. I have always supported the police until the present incidents. When one hears these reports about the police, it is time for an inquiry to be held. That is why I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anybody else, I should mention that the Minister wishes to reply to the debate at 10.15 pm and four other hon. Members wish to take part before then.

Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be brief because we have referred to this matter time and again. It is no use going over the same old ground because I am sure that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members know about the situation.
I should like to examine why this situation has developed. The story of the strike is sad. It never needed to come about. Cortonwood, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), is on the borders of my constituency. Also, I worked for 21 years at Elsecar colliery, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). I think that I know every person and all the families of those who work at those two collieries. I have lived in that area all my life. We have to live with the strike day after day. At the weekends, we spend all the time with our constituents listening to their complaints. It may seem one-sided, because it is our constituents who are doing the complaining. The police have never yet come to us with a complaint.
We know the people who are concerned. I am not saying that action on the picket line does not cause problems—it does. However, one must ask oneself why the problems were caused in the first place. I take Orgreave as an example. What were the pickets to think when the police escorted lorries through their lines at 60 mph? The police did not deny that when they were asked about it. Why were the lorries not allowed to stop so that the pickets could do their picketing? Why has an agreement on picketing not been reached? When 300 or 400 people are standing there shouting, no harm is done. Many times the pickets have asked for six of their members to be given permission to stop people going through the lines so that they can talk to them and put their case, but it has been refused. Because of that, the pickets have had to resort to the tactics that we have seen. When they do so, the police naturally react, and when that happens the pickets also react. It goes on and on, and gets bigger and bigger. However, no one has sat down and thought about talking about it, as happened in Wales when there were problems on the picket lines. We could put a stop to the problems on the picket lines if we used some sense instead of the direct approach.
I have disagreed with my constituents about some aspects of picketing and told them why. It is significant that when we had problems in Toxteth a Minister went there after two days to see for himself. After the problems in Brixton, there was the Scarman report. All that we are asking for is that, after 20 weeks of incidents, there should be a public inquiry. I support a public inquiry because after the strike has ended policing in the areas affected must carry on. The strike will eventually come to an end and people will eventually go back to work. What will not be forgotten are the incidents at the picket line and the policing. We are not talking about the police themselves. We are saying that there is a different approach to policing methods that we have never come across before.
After their defeats in 1972 and 1974, in 1981 when the Prime Minister backed down on the proposed 20 colliery closures, after Saltley and all the other incidents, the Conservatives said that it would never happen again. The reason for the vast police presence on the picket lines is the Prime Minister's determination that there should not be another Saltley. That has been the cause of the trouble, but there is no need for another Saltley if industrial relations are handled properly.
I support the call for a public inquiry because of the aftermath. I have spoken to the police about this. They know what is bound to come. The local police know that once all the extras go back to London they will have to take on the whole burden themselves. Many of us sit on police liaison committees. A great deal has been achieved in the past five or six years. It will be sad indeed to see all that effort lost and the whole job having to be started again. The only way to achieve a base on which to build is to have a public inquiry into the events on the picket lines. Let us have all the information on the table so that we can see what has gone wrong and decide how to proceed in the future.
There is nothing anti-police in our request for a public inquiry. The results of such an inquiry are essential for the future policing of our areas. If there is no inquiry, there will be more problems than the Government can imagine. Throughout the dispute, I have warned the Government of what was about to happen and how to prevent it, but they have not acted on my advice. I make it clear to them now

that we need a public inquiry to provide a basis for the future policing of our areas. People in the south of England know nothing about the north. We who live in the north know all about it because we have to. If policing is to come right in the future we must have a public inquiry. Let us have the truth on the table so that we can discuss it.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: I apologise to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for not being present at the start of the debate, but I had not expected it to start so soon.
Much correspondence and debate has arisen out of the events at Orgreave. As the House knows, the object of the Orgreave run was to ensure that the steelworks in Scunthorpe could continue to operate. From my conversations with both miners and police, and having witnessed some of the worst incidents at Orgreave, I have no doubt that if the police had not been present in such force the steelworks in my constituency would have had to close. It is all very well to criticise the police and their tactics, but the people of Scunthorpe owe a great deal to the police who stood on the picket line at Orgreave, thus ensuring that coke was delivered to the steelworks at a critical time when the blast furnaces were in a very dangerous condition.
Scunthorpe was also invaded by large numbers of pickets—as many as 3,000 on one occasion. But for the police operation on the M180 to stop pickets entering Scunthorpe, I am convinced that the steelworks would have been brought to a halt. I remind hon. Members of the threats to drivers. They had to be protected. A serious law and order dispute occurred.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Hickmet: If the president of the NUM says that there is only one law in an industrial dispute—that no one crosses a picket line—are not the incidents in recent weeks bound to occur? The police, in difficult circumstances, have behaved in a well-disciplined and well-controlled manner.

Mr. Michael Welsh: On one occasion 16 loads which were not necessary in Scunthorpe went from Orgreave. Some of our lads' heads were split open by policemen who charged amongst them. I think that that was wrong. Some may say that the police acted properly, but I say that they acted wrongly when they charged amongst the men on that occasion.
The Home Secretary should reply to all letters from Members of Parliament. It is unacceptable for hon. Members to be told when they write to the Home Secretary that they should take the issue to a chief constable. The Home Secretary may think that that is correct, but he is a Minister of the Crown. If the Home Secretary will not reply to Her Majesty's Members of Parliament, hon. Members must be allowed to write to the monarch, whether one likes that or not. I realise that I must be careful how I express myself.

Sir Raymond Gower: Surely it is impossible for the Home Secretary to reply if an issue


is pending trial in a court of law. It would be wrong for the Home Secretary to attempt to reply to a question about a case which is about to be tried.

Mr. Welsh: That might be a point, but the Home Secretary could reply by saying no. The Home Secretary belittles the House if he does not reply to hon. Members within a reasonable time. Ministers must reply under rules of the House—and they do. I see no reason why the Home Secretary should not do the same.
I am not a legal man, but a village lad—and proud of it. If the Home Secretary has no desire to reply within a reasonable time to a question about someone walking or riding on Her Majesty's highways an hon. Member must go above the House of Commons and write to Her Majesty to see whether she will give permission for her citizens to travel on her highways.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This has been an important debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on obtaining it. I also congratulate my hon. Friends on their contributions from their personal and constituency experiences. I regret that the Home Secretary has not seen fit to attend the debate. The allegations that have been made by my hon. Friends about months passing without replies from the Home Office are very serious and show a great discourtesy to the House.

Mr. Woodall: The Home Secretary believes in the second part of the Yorkshireman's motto, "Eat all, sup all, pay nowt."

Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary, at least momentarily, can be seen in the House, so he may have heard what my hon. Friend said.
The Opposition repeat their sympathy with the police who have been injured during duties that they would have much preferred not to have carried out. However, we are constantly receiving information—and my hon. Friends have referred to some of it—of incidents on the picket lines, in the coal mining areas and on the highways——

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Home Secretary is in the House, should he not be obliged to come into the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): That is not a matter on which I can help the hon. Gentleman. I have no control over these matters.

Mr. Kaufman: That was the Home Secretary that was.
Information comes in all the time about incidents that show that some members of the police force have behaved with excessive force, have exceeded their powers and have seriously infringed civil liberties. Of course, they are in the minority—just as those who have been violent on the picket lines or elsewhere are acknowledged by the chief constable of south Yorkshire to be in the minority. I say quite firmly, so that it can be clearly understood in this House, that the Opposition unequivocally condemn such violence. Violence is alien to the trade union movement in Britain, and hon. Members should be aware of that.
However, it must be said that the minority who have been violent on the picket lines have been depicted by the

Prime Minister and the Home Secretary as being typical of the whole mining community. At the same time, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the whole sorry gang of the Government reject any implication that there might at any time have been any excessive use of police powers.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) denied that the national reporting centre had become the base for a national police force. I have visited the centre and I believe that that is precisely what it has become, and it has happened in a most disquieting manner. In that room in New Scotland Yard are links to all the 45 police forces of England and Wales, subject to the command of the president pro tern of the Association of Chief Police Officers, a man who is literally accountable to no one; not this House, nor to the Home Secretary —and and we are glad of that — nor to any of the elected police authorities. Police forces are deployed by the centre, often against the will of the elected police authorities, but at the expense of the ratepayers who finance those elected authorities.
During the past few days, the nation has been subjected to an extraordinary and repulsive barrage of vituperation by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, which has been carefully orchestrated by Downing street. This almost unprecedented propaganda campaign will backfire. While people in Britain wish to, and should, support the police in the proper discharge of their duties, they equally wish to be sure that the police are carrying out their duties in an acceptable manner.
The police must be given trust and support, but in a democratic society they must never be regarded as being above criticism because once we elevate the police above criticism—once they are placed above the rest of the population—we are headed for a police state, and I am sure that the police themselves would never wish us to go down that road.
The allegations that have been voiced in this debate and on other occasions, in this House and elsewhere, are too serious and numerous to be dismissed in the cavalier manner in which the Home Secretary has repeatedly reacted to them. My hon. Friends who have voiced these allegations tonight and on other occasions are serious, responsible and respected Members of the House not lightly given to making allegations of the validity of which they are not convinced.
It is now essential that an impartial public inquiry be held into allegations about the behaviour of certain of the police during the strike. When it is said that the complaints procedure should be resorted to, I must reply that the complaints procedure is not satisfactory in the circumstances. It is not sufficient, nor is it trusted.
As I say, we require an impartial inquiry. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds really believes, as I am sure he does, that the police have a satisfactory story to tell, he should be as eager for an inquiry as we are. Miners are basically law-abiding men. Unless the air is cleared, there could be a serious, possibly a permanent, breakdown of confidence between the police and many in the mining communities, and that could extend much more widely. Confidence between the police and public is essential in the fight against the desperately serious crime wave that the nation is experiencing.
It is in the interests of the police that such an inquiry should be held, and we calle on the Government to institute one. Further, I recommend, through the hon.
Member for Bury St. Edmunds, to the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers that they should join us in seeking an independent inquiry.
If the Government will not agree to such an inquiry, we shall have to consider whether one can be set up by a Labour Government when we take office. However, before the election, time will have passed and it is far better for an inquiry to take place while memories in all quarters are fresh and while those involved, among the miners and the police, can be questioned properly by impartial people.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What is wrong with the courts?

Mr. Kaufman: There are far too many allegations and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out, the courts are jammed and proceedings are not taking place in the way that they should. What is more, it is not simply a question of individual incidents, important through they are. There is also the question, which is leading to great misgiving in the country, of the nature of policing as it is developing in Britain, in regard to the national reporting centre and of the almost total breakdown in accountability between chief police officers and elected police authorities in many of the areas that have been affected.
Therefore, I call on the Government to abandon their shrill and partisan attitude to this matter. I call on the Government to help to heal the wounds that have been caused during these long 20 weeks, and not only to bring about an inquiry into these allegations so that all involved should be satisfied at the end but, above all, to take definite, conciliatory, urgent action to bring this sorry dispute to an end.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) began by criticising the handling of his letters to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He did not say that he had recently received a reply to his letters, which I hope that he will regard as reasonably full. It is wrong that hon. Members should have to wait so long for replies to their letters. Those concerned in the Home Office, working under great pressure, were anxious to bring together the points raised in different letters from different hon. Members and to put them together to the police officers concerned. Looking back, that was not an adequate reason for the delay, and I regret, as the hon. Gentleman knows because I have already told him, the delay in his case, and other delays that may have occurred. We have taken steps to ensure that letters to hon. Members are dealt with more swiftly in future.
However, I must reject the hon. Gentleman's accusations of disdain and arrogance. There is a crucial distinction between issues of policy and complaints against individual actions by police officers. The first are matters for the Government and for the House. As to the second, Parliament has laid down a procedure, in the Police Acts of 1964 and 1976. Complaints about actions of the police have to be investigated, and the outcome is necessarily subject to the independent scrutiny of the Director of Public Prosecutions on criminal aspects and of the independent Police Complaints Board on disciplinary action.
Let me clear up two points that are not clear in the minds of the hon. Members for Doncaster, North (Mr.

Welsh) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). There is no role for my right hon. and learned Friend the Horne Secretary in the procedure for handling complaints against the police. In the legislation of 1964 and 1976—I draw attention to those dates—Parliament gave him no role. The only role that my right hon. and learned Friend has is that, at the end of the day, he receives and decides appeals in disciplinary cases against individual police officers. It follows that my right hon. and learned Friend has no power and right to involve himself in the investigation of complaints against individual police officers. What we can do—and do is to pass on to chief officers who have that responsibility the complaints that we have received from hon. Members and others so that they can be registered officially and investigated.

Mr. Welsh: The Minister must get many letters from citizens complaining about different things, and in a liberal society we all agree with that. However, when a complaint comes from a Member of Parliament, the Minister should pass that on to the chief constable even if he does not intervene. He should not return it and tell the Member to send the complaint to the chief constable. I am not saying that, as a Member of Parliament, I am better or greater than my fellow citizens, but I am a Member of Parliament and therefore entitled to send complaints to a Minister and hope that, in an open society, the Minister will convey that complaint to the necessary place or person—even if it is a chief constable.

Mr. Hurd: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point by saying that that is precisely what we can do, and do. However, my right hon. and learned Friend has no power or right to involve himself in the investigation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) asked how many complaints had been received. Our latest figures are 205 complaints, 20 of which have been withdrawn, and 778 letters of appreciation.
My right hon. and learned Friend also touched, as he has done before, on delays in bringing cases to court. This is always a matter of concern, and the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary are very ready to consider what help or advice might be given to any court finding itself with an exceptionally heavy load of cases. In particular, the Lord Chancellor is prepared to meet requests from courts for the assistance of stipendiary magistrates.
I turn to policy, which is a different matter and which is of concern not just to individual hon. Members, but to the House and to the Government. No one can accuse the Government of failing to answer points made in the House, to answer questions on many occasions, and to reply to debates. A large number of opportunities are open to the Opposition, they have been taken, and we have responded to them in detail.
I say a word or two on a subject of particular concern which has been raised several times in the debate. I refer to the state of the law as regards the powers of the police to forestall and deal with breaches of the peace.
The legal basis of that power was described to the House on 16 March by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It is for the courts to decide whether, in any instance, the police went beyond their power in this respect. But I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for 'Wentworth, who implied that the police were wrong to exercise that power. We have all


been cruelly conscious of the scenes of violence brought about by the numbers of pickets mobilised at particular points and by the tactics which they have employed.
If the power, which several Opposition Members have criticised, to forestall breaches of the peace had not been used, the numbers outside collieries and in other places would have been far greater. That point was made succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet).

Mr. Hardy: The basic point of my speech and the principal reason for my concern is that I wrote to the Home Secretary on 21 March because 12 Cortonwood miners were refused permission to picket at three entrances at the Silverhills colliery. I was pointing out that if that permission had been forthcoming and if smaller scale picketing had been allowed in the first place, all the scenes that hon. Members deplore would probably not have occurred. Does not the Minister of State understand that when in the House last Thursday the Home Secretary appeared to be recommending six pickets, not four, some of us were entitled to be concerned?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. and learned Friend has always made it clear that peaceful persuasion by pickets is permitted by law, and there can be no difficulty about that. Instead, we have the considered decision by those managing the strike to run it on the basis of large numbers, with all the intimidation which follows. If the police had not used the power, which is now criticised, the force of numbers of which I am speaking might have closed a pit, a coking plant or the steel mill at Scunthorpe.
What would have been the situation then? The constituents of hon. Members who had listened to the arguments and decided to work would have been prevented from doing so not by a ballot in which they had been outvoted and not by peaceful persuasion on the picket line, but by force.
Whatever may be the view of a few hon. Members—not in the House at the moment—about that, I cannot think that the hon. Member for Wentworth would have been proud of that outcome, and I think that most of us and the country would have been deeply ashamed. Yet that is what could and probably would have happened if this police power to forestall breaches of the peace, which is consistently criticised by the Opposition, had not been used.
Lamentably, this has been a long and inevitably controversial operation. In those circumstances, incidents are inevitable, and from time to time there are bound to be different versions of what occurred. That is why, from the very beginning, my right hon. and learned Friend has said that all complaints against the police arising out of this operation should be investigated and dealt with.
However, we must be clear about how these incidents and this situation have arisen. The deciding factor is not the existence of the strike. We are all familiar with strikes.
Most strikes run their course without any need for police operations such as this. The root of the problem has been the decision to run this strike on the basis of mass picketing and intimidation.
Sadly, the casualty figures have to be updated from time to time. Between 14 March and 17 July, 512 police officers were injured in performing their duties in connection with the dispute, and 33 of the injuries were serious. It is not only the police who suffer. Last night, at half-past eleven, 40 men attacked the house of a working miner in Shirebrook in Derbyshire. Stones were thrown. The single policeman who was first on the scene was attacked, and three arrests were made after further police arrived. That is the latest in a series of incidents with which those who have to read these reports day by day are sadly familiar.
I have listened to the argument for an inquiry, but I do not believe that it has been made out. One of the items in the early-day motion refers to complaints about police behaviour. There is a complaints procedure laid down by Parliament, and it is being used to the extent that I have described. On the other hand, if we are talking about the police having exceeded the powers granted to them by Paliament or derived from the common law, such complaints can be tested in the courts. If what is in question is Government policy, that policy has been tested, argued and justified in the House.
I take seriously what I believe to be the main driving force behind the proposal. The hon. Member for Wentworth has referred to the poison which is seeping into relations between the police and his constituents. I agree that that poison exists. However, the source of that poison is no secret. It is the attempt to run this strike by violent means.
I regret some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I have no complaint to make about his action in bringing the grievances of his constituents before the House. We all have a right to do that. However, I hope that he and the Opposition Front Bench will understand that they have no monopoly of indignation. Hon. Members on the Government Benches feel increasingly strongly about what has happened, what we see and what we are told about by eye witnesses. I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks from experience and with sincerity on these matters. However, if he and the Opposition Front Bench are to carry conviction in their appeal about relations between the police and the public, they must use their influence with the leaders of the strike and persuade them to change their bullying and undemocratic tactics. There is the taint. There is the poison. The whole House must agree about that. For heaven's sake, let us try to drain the poison out of the situation. That can happen only if those who took the fatal decision to run the dispute on the basis of violence are brought to reverse that decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o' clock.